Preamble

The House met a Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NIGERIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (RESOLUTION)

Mr. Speaker: I have received a copy of a Resolution adopted by the House of Representatives of Nigeria on 11th March, 1952. I desire to read it to the House—
That this House of Representatives of the people of Nigeria, deeply appreciating the friendship and good wishes of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, expresses its thanks for the message sent to them by the Lord Chancellor and Speaker: in thanking the three Members of that Parliament who have travelled so far to carry the message, the House of Representatives asks them, on their return to the United Kingdom, to convey to their respective Houses, which together constitute the oldest Assembly in the Commonwealth, a message of affection and esteem from the new Parliament of Nigeria, founded on the principles which have made the Parliament at Westminster an inspiration to the free peoples of the world.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

CITY OF LONDON (GUILD CHURCHES) BILL

Order for committal [25th February] read and discharged;

Bill committed to a Select Committee of Nine Members, Five to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection: The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, Sir Richard Acland, Sir Edward Boyle, Mr. Eric Fletcher and Mr. Patrick Maitland: Promoters of the Bill to be at liberty to be heard in favour of the Bill by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents: Power to send for persons, papers, and records: Five to be the Quorum.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Service Dress Regulations (Review)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will describe the present regulations regarding the wearing of Service dress in the Army; and what changes in these regulations he proposes to make.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): Under present regulations Service dress may be worn by those who have got it at any time, except when parading with troops in battle dress. This question is under review.

Major Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the fact that Service dress is very expensive indeed, nearly all officers in the Army are, in fact, buying it and that, as a result of the great delays in issuing No. 1 dress many newly-joined officers are uncertain whether they should spend the money on Service dress which may soon be replaced by No. 1 dress? Will my right hon. Friend look at this matter in order to clear up that uncertainty?

Mr. Head: As I have said, the whole question is under review, and when I say that it is under review I mean under urgent review.

Personal Cases

Mr. T. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now been able to arrange for the posting to Malta from Tripolitania of 7591061 Corporal L. Bartolo, R.E.M.E., L.A.D. Attached 4/7 R.D.9, M.E.L.F. 1; and if he will state the reasons for the delay in dealing with this case and for the nonpayment of family allowances for Mrs. Bartolo's children and of an appropriate portion of the local overseas allowance for her maintenance.

Mr. Head: As regards the first part, "Yes, Sir." The answer to the second part is that special family allowances and married rates of local overseas allowance are issuable only where the husband and family have set up residence together at


the husband's duty station; as this condition was not fulfilled, this n.c.o. was not then entitled to these allowances, but he will be when he joins his family in Malta.

Mr. Driberg: When the right hon. Gentleman says—and I welcome the information—"Yes, Sir" in reply to the first part of the Question, does that mean, as I gather from his last words, that the man in question has not yet gone to Malta?

Mr. Head: The first part of the answer means that this man will be posted to Malta very shortly.

Mr. Victor Yates: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the case of Private Robert Harper of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps who died from tuberculosis while on the way to Warwick Hospital, on Wednesday, 12th March, having been treated by his medical officer for spasmodic asthma; and what steps he is taking to ensure the correct diagnosis of disease from which serving soldiers may be suffering.

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir. The concurrence of tuberculosis of the lung and bronchial asthma inevitably makes diagnosis of the former chronic condition difficult. In this case, I regret to say, it escaped detection.

Mr. Yates: In view of the fact that it was stated at the inquest that this man had been suffering from tuberculosis of the lung for several months, will the Minister say why it was that he not sent to hospital until the day on which he died? Secondly, what steps are taken to see that there is a proper X-ray examination of soldiers to detect the disease from which they may be suffering?

Mr. Head: I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman that we should do everything possible to detect tuberculosis at an early stage. I am informed by expert opinion that bronchial asthma can make it extremely difficult to detect tuberculosis at an early stage. I have been into the case in some detail, and, although I much regret the mistake, I think it is one which might have been made by any medical officer concerned. I am further informed—although I am afraid it is poor consolation—that even had the initial diagnosis been made it

would probably not in this particular case have saved the man's life.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of mass X-ray for all entrants? Mass radiography is the answer to this question.

Mr. Head: I think the hon. Member will agree that that is a different Question, but I undertake to look into it.

Mr. F. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the case of 1474384 ex-Bombardier Tomkins, about whom the hon. Member for Uxbridge wrote on 10th March, and an answer to which he has not yet received; and if he will ensure that ex-Bombardier Tomkins is not recalled for reserve training.

Mr. Head: The hon. Member will now have received a letter from my hon. Friend.

Mr. Beswick: Yes I have, but it is not very satisfactory. Will the Minister look into this again? There is no question of personal hardship. It has never been claimed there was. The man was in the Territorials before the war and served throughout the war, and it would not hurt him to do another 15 days. But he is now over 40 years of age and is the managing director of a substantial firm which is going on to armament subcontracts in the national emergency. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he should be kept on his present job and not called up?

Mr. Head: These questions of men on the industrial side being called up are referred to the Ministry of Labour. This case has been referred to them, and they do not consider that on those grounds this man should be exempted.

Major Guy Lloyd: In view of the fact that there are 114 Questions on the Order Paper today, would not this have been a suitable Question to put down for a written answer?

Mr. Beswick: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I am asking him to look into this personally? Is he not aware that the Ministry of Labour turned this case down on the grounds of personal hardship and that I am emphasising that there are other aspects of this matter and asking him to look at it again?

Mr. Head: Perhaps I can have a word with the hon. Member.

Mr. Julian Snow: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will arrange for the Z Reserve training period to be suspended in the case of Mr. W. A. Beasley, who is under contract to the North Warwick Colliery Lodge for the delivery of allowance coal.

Mr. Head: If the hon. Member will let me know this man's Army number and unit, and if possible the date of call-up, it will expedite our inquiry into the case.

Mr. Snow: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, may I ask if he is aware that this man is under contract to the colliery that it has been impossible to find anybody capable of carrying out this detailed delivery work, and that the miners of the North Warwick Colliery feel very strongly on this point?

Mr. Head: I will undertake to look carefully into the case. I think that, on the whole, the War Office is not unsympathetic when cases of this kind arise.

Royal Welch Fusiliers (Christmas Parcels)

Mr. James Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for War what report he has received on the reasons for the 1st Battalion, Royal Welch Fusiliers not receiving their Christmas parcels.

Mr. Head: The hon. Member will now have received my letter dealing with the inquiry into this delay.

Mr. Callaghan: As the reply which I have just received says that the last troops did not receive their Christmas parcels till 6th March, can the Minister tell us what steps he takes to ensure that, when troops are posted to outlying islands, mail communications are kept up?

Mr. Head: The hon. Member will see that the somewhat unfortunate set of circumstances outlined in my letter were the cause of some delay. This was accentuated by the fact that there is no very frequent shipping between these islands.

Home Guard

Major H. Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for War when he proposes to start enrolling members of the Home Guard.

Mr. Head: On Monday, 28th April.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would my right hon. Friend say whether from this date onwards any badge will be issued to members of the Home Guard so that they can show they have joined?

Mr. Head: We are proposing to issue to those who are enrolled as members of the Home Guard a badge, somewhat similar to other badges, which will indicate their membership of this body.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: Since the right hon. Gentleman said he must have a minimum of 125,000, and will require more, and the rate of recruiting has now dropped to less than 4,000 a month, and it is quite clear he will not obtain the number for which he has asked by any stretch of the imagination, would it not be better to abandon this foolish scheme before further time and money is wasted on it?

Mr. Head: I am disappointed that hon. Members opposite, who, although questioning the advisability of the Home Guard, gave an undertaking that they would support it, are now doing the very reverse. Nobody could be so bold as to say there might not be a sudden war, and the existence of the Home Guard will be invaluable to the country.

Mr. Wyatt: As the right hon. Gentleman has only 33,000 now and has said on the Army Estimates that he will want 170,000, all he is doing therefore is wasting the enthusiasm of a few people. Does he not agree that he ought to scrap the scheme and wait until an emergency arises?

Mr. Head: If I waited until the emergency, it would put the Territorial Army and the Regular Army in a considerable jam. The Home Guard is not being helped by people like the hon. Member, who are doing their very best to discourage it.

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War what instructions have been issued to Home Guard units on the subject of their co-operation with the Civil Defence organisation.

Mr. Head: Instructions to units will be issued as soon as they are formed.

East African Forces (Commissions)

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to train suitable Africans for commissioned rank in Her Majesty's East African Forces.

Mr. Head: Much is being done by the Army to educate the East African soldier to qualify for commissioned rank and 10 hours a week are devoted to education. But, until the educational standard of the recruit on entry is raised, there will be great difficulty in finding candidates suitable for training for the grant of a Queen's commission.

Mr. Alport: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the commissioning of Africans has been agreed in principle for the future and, if so, whether there is any intention to open Makerere College with special courses for that purpose?

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir, I am most anxious that we should make progress in commissioning officers in all our colonial forces. At the moment the difficulty is educational, and we are taking considerable steps to overcome it. The major difficulty is the basic education before the man arrives.

Colchester Garrison (Strength)

Mr. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for War what additions to the strength of the Colchester garrison he anticipates will be made in the immediate future.

Mr. Head: The second battalions of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, the Black Watch and the Sherwood Foresters, which are now forming, will be stationed at Colchester.

Mr. Alport: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there will be any other ancillary units in addition to the three units he has mentioned?

Mr. Head: Not as far as I know. I think my hon. Friend's constituency has a good share.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: As the Black Watch is going to Colchester, is it not reasonable to expect that that is ample for any town?

Mr. Head: I am obliged for the forbearance of my hon. and gallant Friend who, I thought, would be urging me to send them to Scotland. They are being sent to this garrison for operational reasons.

Mr. Ede: Might not the right hon. Gentleman send the Essex Regiment in exchange.

Mr. Head: Well, exchange is no robbery.

Boys' Battalion (Terms of Service)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for War the terms of enlistment for a boy joining the Boys' Battalion at the age of 15 years.

Mr. Head: Up to the age of 18 with the Colours, and thereafter for eight years with the Colours and four years with the Royal Army Reserve or, at his own request, for 12 years with the Colours.

Mr. Hynd: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that last week, as reported in col. 1395 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, of 1st April, he assured us that it was not possible for a boy to sign on for 15 years, and does his answer not show that it is possible for a 15-year old boy to sign on for 15 years?

Mr. Head: I think my answer referred to Colour service. As the hon. Member knows, boy's service does not count. It is, of course, possible if one includes boy's service. As for the Boys' Battalion which is now forming, we are considering whether a shorter period of Colour service should not now be introduced.

Mr. George Chetwynd: Is it possible for them to purchase their release at 18 years of age, as used to be the case?

Mr. Head: In September, 1953, when the present scheme of holding men in the Regular Army is finished, it will be possible once again for men to purchase their discharge.

Department (Overseas Staff)

Mr. Barnett Janner: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of home-based civil servants of his Department serving abroad in the clerical, executive, works group, including mechanical and electrical engineers, scientific, technical draughtsmen and other categories, respectively.

Mr. Head: The latest breakdown of home-based staff serving with the War Department overseas is as follows. Executive, clerical and typing staffs 181; professional, scientific and technical staffs 612; ancillary technical staff and supervisory


staff in industrial establishments 260; industrial staff 58; total 1,111. These figures exclude stalls in Germany recently taken over or in process of being taken over from the Control Commission.

Wrexham Depot (Postings)

Mr. Tudor Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for War how many National Service men who have been stationed at Wrexham during the last six months have signed on for further service; how many have refused; and if it is with his authority that young soldiers have been told that unless they sign on for further service they are liable to be drafted to Korea.

Mr. Head: I take it that the hon. Member is referring to the Depot, the Royal Welch Fusiliers, since the other unit in Wrexham does not provide drafts for Korea. Out of 120 National Service men who joined this depot since January. 30 have undertaken Regular engagements. National Service men may be posted from this depot to any unit within the Welsh Brigade Group, while a man undertaking a Regular engagement can generally serve with the regiment of his choice. I think it right that the men should be told where the battalions of the brigade are serving. I do not accept the implication in the last part of the Question: the facts were put to the men without coercion.

Mr. Watkins: May I have an assurance that the persons who are interviewing these young soldiers do not threaten them with service in Korea if they do not sign on for further service?

Mr. Head: I have a copy of the letter written by the commanding officer. I think it is a very fair letter. The information he gave to the men was that if they joined the Regular Army they could apply to join the regiment of their choice; otherwise they could be posted to any one of three regiments, and he merely stated factually where those regiments were.

Entertainments

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War what economies, for the purpose of reducing expenditure, he is making in the provision of live, film and radio entertainment for British troops in Germany and elsewhere.

Mr. Head: Except in Korea, live and cinema entertainment is provided without expense to public funds. The scale is related to the needs of the various theatres. No economies are contemplated, and the scale in Korea and Malaya has been recently increased. The Forces Broadcasting Service is designed to provide radio programmes where existing programmes cannot be received satisfactorily.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the War Office is closing down the British Forces Network in Hamburg in a few weeks' time, although this service is very greatly appreciated by the men in B.A.O.R. and their relatives at home? What does he hope to save by the closing down of the British Forces Network?

Mr. Head: There is no intention of closing down the British Forces Network.

Mr. Driberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind particularly the great need in the Canal Zone, which he did not mention in his original answer?

Mr. Head: I am well aware of that.

Class Z Reservists

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent it is estimated that men called up for Z training will be available for the same duties in the event of an outbreak of hostilities.

Mr. Head: It is our policy, whenever possible, to use men in the same duties in war.

Mr. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that I have brought several cases to his attention—there has been another case this afternoon which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick)—of men who have been called up for Class Z training who in no circumstances will be available in an emergency? This is a waste of their time and quite defeats the object of the scheme.

Mr. Head: These cases are referred to the Ministry of Labour for clearance. It is our job not to call up for training men who are not available in time of war.

Mr. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend bring that fact to the attention of the Minister of Labour, because there seems


to be some misunderstanding about the position?

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA

Evening Meals

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are made to ensure the feeding of British troops in Korea between 5 p.m. and breakfast the next day.

Mr. Head: The British ration provides for a meal between 5 p.m. and breakfast. Under operational conditions, it is not always possible to provide a hot meal after 5 p.m., in which case compo rations are made available.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Whilst appreciating that for operational reasons it is not always possible to provide hot meals in forward areas, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen a statement by a War Office doctor that some of the troops are having to spend as much as £1 a week out of their pay for chocolates to stave off hunger during this 14-hour gap?

Mr. Head: I do not think anybody in a forward area would have the opportunity of spending £1 a week on chocolate, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that, from everything I have heard, there is a general opinion that the rations for the British Army in Korea are extremely good.

Northumberland Fusiliers (Sentences)

Mr. Douglas Houghton: asked the Secretary of State for War what decision has been reached on the review of the court-martial sentences on Fusilier Taylor and other soldiers of the Northumberland Fusiliers in Korea.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to state the result of the review of the court-martial sentences on the 11 soldiers of the Northumberland Fusiliers in Korea.

Mr. Head: This review was carried out on 28th March, when the superior military authority directed that the sentences should remain in execution and be reviewed again on 30th June.

Mr. Houghton: I should like to ask the Secretary of State three questions.

First of all, does he realise the acute disappointment which this decision will be to the parents of these boys? Secondly, how long are these periodical reviews to continue? Thirdly, what are the criteria upon which the summary military authority reached its decision?

Mr. Head: I am aware that this decision will be a disappointment to the parents of the men concerned. These reviews are undertaken by the G.O.C., and I think it is right that he should be the authority to undertake them. The particular situation, and certain matters about which I have talked to the hon. Member concerning these men, have been communicated to the G.O.C., and he is aware of them.
These reviews will continue to take place at six-monthly intervals during the sentences. These men have served nine months out of their two-year sentences, and I do not think the hon. Member should despair of the hope that at some future date the decision will be favourable, though I cannot give an undertaking to that effect.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Secretary of State aware that these lads had a first-class record up to this regrettable incident and that nothing at all has been done for them as a result of this review? Is he further aware that if these reviews are to be continued much longer, the men will have served their full sentences without any remission? Could the Secretary of State not convey to the authorities the civilian idea in some way and make it their duty to consider it?

Mr. Head: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that this offence was mutiny in the face of the enemy, which is a very serious offence. I would also point out to him that the particular fact that some of these men were extremely young National Service men who might have been influenced by older men into doing this has been represented to the G.O.C., and I think it is best to leave it to his judgment.

Mr. Taylor: Were these men tried on a charge of mutiny?

Mr. Head: I have not got the facts before me, and I should not like to give a categorical undertaking; but I am


almost certain that the particular charge was mutiny. I will communicate with the right hon. Gentleman further in the matter, but I am almost certain of that fact.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Gypsies

Mr. Norman Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made in taking the gypsy survey and in arranging alternative camping sites in Kent.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The survey is nearly completed, and the Kent County Council has now taken up the question of alternative sites with the local authorities.

Mr. Dodds: That is very good news. In view of the inhuman attitude of many local authorities on this minority problem, will the Minister give every encouragement to find a satisfactory solution which can serve as a Christian example to the rest of the country?

Mr. Macmillan: We will do what we can.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if his attention has been drawn to the eviction of the 100 settlers from the gypsy encampment at Dudley, Worcestershire, on 27th March, who were escorted by the police over the borough boundary; and what provision is being made for them to find a sanctuary to avoid their coming in permanent conflict with the law.

Mr. H. Macmillan: My attention had not previously been called to this matter, but I have made inquiries. I understand that as a result of complaints from local inhabitants a number of caravans moved out of the borough. According to the information supplied to me by the borough council, they have had little difficulty in finding other sites.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of them have communicated with me that they are now being chased from borough to borough and that the Brierley Hill local authority say they will not be allowed to remain

within their boundaries? As there are children amongst this group of gypsies who are denied the right of going to school, is it not time that something was done so that they may have a sanctuary, as other people have?

Mr. Macmillan: That is really another question, but I should hardly have thought that a borough was the best place for gypsy caravans.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can we have an assurance that none of those gypsies is a Tory displaced from a county council?

Housing Committees (Chairmen)

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether his attention has been called to cases where the chairman of the housing committee of a local authority is also a contractor to the same council for the building of council dwellings: and whether he will issue instructions as to the undesirability of such an arrangement.

Mr. H. Macmillan: No, Sir. No such cases have been brought to my attention, and I see no reason for issuing any instructions on this subject.

Mr. Pargiter: Is the Minister aware that in parts of Ealing this position prevails? Having regard to the fact that the old method of tendering is to some extent being dispensed with and existing tenders are being continued, in accordance with the Minister's instructions for construction on the same site, will the Minister say whether he still considers it desirable that this position should continue?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman has now mentioned a particular case which has not been brought to my attention. I think it has always been a rule in our public life that it is not wrong to have an interest but that it is wrong not to disclose an interest.

Mr. James Hudson: In view of the fact that the chairman will have very special facilities in connection with the observance of tenders submitted for houses, does not the Minister think that it is very undesirable that he should be in that advantageous position? Is it not a breach of the usual rules of public life?

Mr. Macmillan: If the hon. Gentleman had called my attention to this matter in a specific case, of course I should have looked into it, but he put the Question down in general terms and mentioned his specific accusation only at a later stage.

Rural Water and Sewerage Schemes

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will state, with regard to rural water schemes and with regard to sewerage schemes in England and Wales, the respective value of schemes submitted to him for approval; of schemes approved in principle but not yet authorised to go for tender; of schemes authorised for commencement but not yet completed; of schemes completed; of grants promised but not yet paid; and of grants paid, up to 31st October, 1951.

Mr. H. Macmillan: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL. REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The following details relate to the period from the end of the war to 31st October, 1951. Information on the value of schemes actually completed during that period are not available.

—
Water Supply
Sewerage and Sewage disposal



£
£


1. Value of rural schemes submitted for approval
63,803,991
47,692,279


2. Value of schemes approved in principle but not yet authorized to go to tender
14,465,206
6,883,060


3. Value of schemes authorized for commencement (completed and incompleted)
27,889,571
17,330,883


4. Grants promised finally or conditionally under the rural Water Supply and Sewerage Acts, 1944 and 1951
10,801,423
7,525,895


5. Portion of (4) paid to 31st October, 1951
2,291,689
1,720,922

Reform

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now set up a Select Committee to consider the reform of local government.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I am not yet in a position to make any further statement.

Mr. Harvey: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a matter of some urgency upon which Members of both sides of the House are agreed and, in view of the length of time it will require, would it not be a good thing to get the matter under way at any early date?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir. While the idea of a Select Committee of the House of Commons is in many ways a very attractive one, I think it would be very important that it should have very clear terms of reference and that perhaps there should be some prior agreement by the House upon the general principles.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: Will the Minister consult with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in view of the results of the county council elections, and suggest that further contentious legislation should not be introduced into the House? In those circumstances, would not the Minister agree that local government reform would be a suitable subject for debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Interest Rates

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities are having to pay the new rates of interest on houses which were actually under construction at the time the interest rate was raised to 3¾ per cent., but in respect of which loans had not actually been taken up.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister not aware of the confusion and disappointment caused to local authorities by the operation of this higher rate of interest, and will he not now withdraw the whole thing in view of the county council elections?

Mr. Macmillan: I think the hon. Gentleman is rather extending the scope of his Question.

Returns

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many houses were commenced during the five months to 31st March, as compared with the number during the previous five months.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I regret that I am unable to add to the information already included in the published housing returns.

Mr. Hynd: I do not think the published housing returns give the information asked for in the Question. As there is now a new policy, under which all the resources are being concentrated on finishing houses which have already been under construction rather than starting new ones, is it not rather important that we should get this information?

Mr. Macmillan: I think the housing returns give very complete information and, like my predecessors, I propose to rest upon them.

Mr. Callaghan: Does this mean that the Minister is maintaining the policy of starting as many houses under this Government as was started under the last Government?

Mr. Macmillan: If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question I will give him an answer.

Mr. Callaghan: As my hon. Friend's Question asks the Minister whether the number started during these five months is the same as for the previous period, is he not in a position to tell us now?

Mr. Macmillan: There is nothing I can add, except that anybody who knew anything about this sort of matter would know that it was possible to compare only like periods in each year.

Wandsworth

Mr. Richard Adams: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to improve the rate of local authority building in the borough of Wandsworth.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The borough council's programme for 1952 and 1953 shows that they are alive to the needs of

the borough. I shall do all I can to encourage and help the council to achieve this programme.

Mr. Adams: Does the Minister think that these vague efforts of encouragement will do anything to bring about the 50 per cent. increase of building which was promised in the General Election last October?

Mr. Macmillan: If the hon. Member would like me to be more precise, whereas they had an instalment of 300, it has now been increased to 565.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: On a point of order. May we have some light in the House?

Mr. Adams: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what increase in housing accommodation he expects to be made in the borough of Wandsworth in the current year; and how this compares with the rest of the country.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The number of dwellings under construction in the borough at the beginning of the year by the London County Council and the borough council was 4,004. I am not prepared to prophesy how many will be completed during the year. Information as to the number of houses under construction in the whole country is contained in the published housing returns.

Mr. Adams: Could the Minister explain, since he is not prepared to say how many will be completed during the current year, why he was so enthusiastic in his answer to Question 24?

Mr. Macmillan: I think it would be very foolish of me to tie myself to a number that will be completed.

Requisitioned Premises

Mr. Donald Chapman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many dwellings have been requisitioned during the last 12 months for housing purposes.

Mr. H. Macmillan: During the year ended 29th February, 1952, 37 dwellings were requisitioned for housing purposes in England and Wales.

Mr. Chapman: Is the Minister satisfied with that very small figure of houses


requisitioned in the last 12 months? Is he not aware of the many houses—many, for example, within easy walking distance of this House—which have been standing empty for months and could provide homes for families?

Mr. Macmillan: There are nearly 85,000 premises held by this system of requisitioning and I am not anxious that that number should be increased as a normal system. I do not think it is a right system for normal purposes, although it may occasionally have to be used to meet this particular difficulty.

Mr. Chapman: Is the Minister satisfied to see houses standing empty, literally for months, when they could be divided into many flats?

Mr. Macmillan: Requisitioning in the technical sense of the word, and I assume that the hon. Gentleman means that, is not the only method of dealing with the situation.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Has not the Minister asked local authorities to decrease the number of requisitioned properties and thus add to the difficulties of the problem?

Mr. Macmillan: I have asked them to decrease the number of requisitioned properties for which the Exchequer carries the whole burden and to exercise some of their rights by which they will carry some of them.

Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act

Mr. Barnett Janner: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that the judgment of the Divisional Court in the case of Rex v. St. Helens Rent Tribunal ex parte Pickavance results in making the provisions of Section eleven of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, practically useless as a protection for tenants; and if he will introduce legislation to remedy this position.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I am aware of this case, and understand that notice of appeal against the judgment has been given by the rent tribunal.

Mr. Janner: While I appreciate that point, does not the right hon. Gentleman

realise that the Section referred to in the Question is one which was passed specifically in consequence of the tremendous difficulty which people experience—

Sir Herbert Williams: On a point of order. Is it in order to raise a matter which is sub judice by a Question in the House?

Mr. Speaker: I was listening to the hon. Gentleman. It is improper to canvass the merits of the case in detail, but this is another question.

Mr. Janner: I was asking, in view of the fact that this Section was passed specially as a consequence of the terrible difficulties which people were experiencing in finding houses, whether the Minister would be careful to watch the result of this case and, if it happens to be adverse, whether he will see that some legislation is passed to deal with it?

Mr. Speaker: That is hypothetical.

Mr. G. Williams: Further to the point of order raised earlier by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), may we have candles on the extreme back benches as well as in the rest of the Chamber?

Stoke-on-Trent

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what increase in housing accommodation is to be expected in 1952 as compared with the past three years in the city of Stoke-on-Trent; and how the figures compare with other local authorities in the West Midlands Region.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what number of houses of all types were built in the city of Stoke-on-Trent during 1951; and how this number per head of the population compares with the achievement of other local authorities in the West Midlands Region for the same period.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Detailed information for the past three years is contained in the published returns. I would rather not hazard a guess at the numbers to be completed in 1952.

Dr. Stross: Would the Minister, however, be prepared to go as far as to say that he thinks this local authority are doing as well as or better than most local


authorities in the West Midlands region? In view of the difficulties which he knows they must face because of subsidence and for other reasons, will he give them all further help he can?

Mr. Macmillan: I will give them all possible help, of course, but I do not like to be asked to make these comparisons between one part of the country and another. I am reminded of the schoolboy who was asked to say the difference between major and minor prophets and replied, Far be it from me to make any distinction between those holy men."

Mr. Davies: While the Minister is reluctant to give detailed figures, will he not promise that he will do everything he can to help the local authority to improve the good record they had last year and this year, and resist any proposal to divide the authority for building purposes in Stoke-on-Trent, as is suggested in certain proposals which are at present under consideration?

Mr. Macmillan: I am anxious to raise the production of houses in this area to the maximum possible, and I am very glad to see that it now appears that the hon. Member supports me in that desire.

Mr. George Tomlinson: Does this comparison between authorities apply also to gasometers?

Mr. Macmillan: I should not like to be drawn into that rather tender subject.

North Staffordshire

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government which local authorities in North Staffordshire are building houses to specifications below the former standards.

Mr. H. Macmillan: None, Sir. I understand that the authorities are building or propose to build to designs similar to those illustrated in "Houses, 1952."

Dr. Stross: Is the Minister aware that the local authority in Stoke-on-Trent, and many others, have no desire to see the standards to which they have been building degraded by comparison with the standards of last year and the year before? Where such authorities are showing such vigour and enterprise, as they are in this case, will he promise the House that he will not press unduly that there should be any lowering of standards?

Mr. Macmillan: There is no question of lowering standards. These are the standards in the Dudley Committee and these are the designs which I had the pleasure of admitting that I inherited from my predecessor.

Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts (Loans)

Mr. Alport: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he is taking to raise the money advanced to prospective house owners under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts from 90 per cent. to 95 per cent. of the capital sum involved.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The limitation of an advance under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts to 90 per cent. of the value of the property is statutory. Owing to the uncertainty of values at the moment, I am not persuaded that to remove the limit would be effective, since under this Act local authorities are empowered, not required, to make these advances.

Repairs and Maintenance (Rents)

Mr. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the hardship caused under the Rent Restriction Acts and that tenants are forced to live in uncongenial homes owing to the impossibility in many cases of the landlords doing the necessary repairs; and if he will therefore take steps to implement the recommendations of the Ridley Report.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I cannot add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) on 1st April.

Mr. Williams: I did not hear the reply, but I do ask my right hon. Friend to treat this as very urgent, because in many cases the rents do not even cover the cost of repairs, and it is the tenants who are suffering. The sanitary inspector comes along, but nothing can be done because there is no money there to do the repairs.

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, it is a difficult and complicated question, but I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is not suitably dealt with by Question and answer.

Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see to it that those


landlords who have been drawing the excess amount which was allowed under the Rent Restriction Acts for repairs will do the repairs which they have not done for so many years?

Mr. Macmillan: That is for the local authorities.

Rent Tribunal, Paddington (Chairman)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he has not reappointed the previous chairman of the Paddington rent tribunal in view of his high qualifications, his record of service, and the experience he has gained in hearing a large number of rent cases over the last six years.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I have acted in the exercise of my discretion, in the light of all the circumstances.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, but is the Minister aware of the fact that this gentleman, an ex-Army officer, has been doing excellent work in this borough, and that he happens to be an ex-Labour Member of Parliament? Can we be assured that in this case there is no political prejudice on the part of the Minister?

Mr. Macmillan: I can give that assurance with absolute certainty.

Stoke Bliss, Worcestershire

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that the Ten-bury Rural District Council in Worcestershire is frustrated from building agricultural workers houses in the Parish of Stoke Bliss by the refusal of the Midlands Electricity Board to provide electricity to enable water to be pumped from a deep-bore to supply the proposed houses; and, in view of the importance of food production, if he will make representations to the Midlands Electricity Board with a view to the provision of electricity thus facilitating the necessary water supply for the housing plans.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I am instructing my regional officers to discuss the problem with representatives of the Board and of the council.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the history of this case, and does he know that the parishioners, the

local authority, and the local Member of Parliament—that is myself—have been trying for months to get the Chairman of the Midlands Electricity Board to show a helpful attitude towards this remote rural community? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, treat the matter with due urgency?

Mr. Macmillan: Perhaps, as the matter has now been sufficiently ventilated, it will be resolved.

New Towns

Mr. Michael Foot: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) the figure for building in new towns under the capital investment programme during 1952;
(2) what reductions were made in the allocations under the capital investment programme for building in new towns following the restrictions on capital investment in January.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 26th March by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).

Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that he will not give to the House detailed figures of what have been the cuts in the capital investment programme in these cases? Why should there be all this secrecy about it?

Mr. Macmillan: Because it is not thought to be of much use to give these figures. The point, which I can state quite simply, is that, so far as the housing in these new towns is concerned, we shall go forward as fast as we can.

Mr. Foot: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is proper and right that Members of this House should be able to compare the allocations made under the capital investment programme to see how they affect the new towns as against the blitzed cities and other claimants? Does he not think it right that they should consider that, instead of his concealing the figures from the House in order to conceal from the people of the blitzed towns the cut in the capital investment programme for them?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. What I am objecting to is


this rigid method of the capital investment programme's operating in a negative fashion. It is a general guide. Wherever possible we shall do better than the plan.

Mr. Foot: In that case, if there is no such procedure laid down, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why some of his colleagues have been constantly sending letters to hon. Members of this House saying all projects have been stopped on account of the capital investment programme? Can he further explain how the Chancellor of the Exchequer can say that he is going to save £100 million on the capital investment programme if there is no method of adding up each individual item?

Mr. Macmillan: I have tried to explain—but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to be able to understand—that this is a general guide, and that, so far as housing is concerned, it will be used as a general guide and not as a limiting factor.

War-Damaged Property, Ealing (Repairs)

Mr. J. Hudson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in view of the adverse report by the regional architect of his Department on the restoration of the war-damaged Grange in St. Stephen's Road, Ealing, for which building licences amounting to £16,210 were issued between June. 1950, and August, 1951, why these licences were proceeded with.

Mr. H. Macmillan: This was a case of extensive war damage. There has, fear, been some lack of regard for economy in the repairs and improvements authorised in this case. By the time my attention was drawn to the matter it would have been false economy to stop the work.

Mr. Hudson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance that he has given me about the watchfulness of his Department in this matter, may I ask him whether it is not true that, in the early stages of this enormous expenditure on one house, there was a report given by his officer against proceeding with the heavy expenditure? How has it come about that that report has not been of greater efficacy?

Mr. Macmillan: It may have been, but I am afraid I was not here then.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORNISH COAST-LINE (NATIONAL PARK SURVEY)

Mr. G. R. Howard: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will take steps to have the coast-line of the county of Cornwall designated as a national park.

Mr. H. Macmillan: No, Sir. It is for the National Parks Commission to make a submission to me.

Mr. Howard: Has my right hon. Friend not had any representations from the National Parks Commission in view of the recent statement in a certain newspaper of 20th March?

Mr. Macmillan: I understand that they are making a survey of the whole area.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: If the Minister does receive representations, will he give them a sympathetic hearing, in view of the warm support that there would be for them from many people besides the inhabitants of Cornwall?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, I am always sympathetic.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Purchase Tax (Textiles)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount collected as Purchase Tax on textiles in the years 1949–50 and 1951–52; and the amount collected in the last six months of 1951–52.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): Purchase Tax collected in 1949 to 1950 from clothing (except footwear), haberdashery, textile piece goods, household textile goods and floor coverings was about £112 million. I am afraid I cannot give a comparable figure for 1951 to 1952, as the necessary details are not yet available for the March quarter just ended: but I estimate it will probably be something like £95 million. The tax collected from these classes of goods during the last six months, up to December, 1951, for which firm figures are available, was about £46 million.

Mr. Beswick: If the Chancellor will make inquiries as to what is being collected towards the end of that time. I


think he will find that as regards textiles—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] I am asking a question on the figures. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will find that the amount now runs at something like the rate of a sixth of what it was in 1949 to 1950? In view of that, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be possible to abolish this tax and still not lose any great amount to the Exchequer?

Mr. Butler: As far as figures are available, I would not say that the hon. Gentleman is correct; but, of course, we would watch any tendency such as that. I think it is impossible in the March quarter yet to use the expression "breakdown"—that is, to put into detail the different types of categories within this whole heading of textiles. If I am able to, I will certainly do so.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unless the Government do more than they have so far to expand the sale of textiles, the yield of Purchase Tax over the next quarter will be negligible?

Mr. Butler: Of course I regret the very serious recession in the textile industry as much as anybody. I also regret its results on the Revenue. Anything the Government can do to keep up the Revenue we shall do.

Income Tax

Mr. I. Mikardo: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the extra £1 per week is retained by a single man earning £7 per week who increases his earnings to £8 per week; and how much of the extra £1 will be retained by him when the new tax tables come into force.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In this particular case the hon. Member will be aware that the reduction in tax on overtime work is limited to the reduction produced by the increase in earned income relief, and the gain is 2d. The same man will have the tax on his pay reduced by 4s. 4d. a week.

Mr. Mikardo: Does not this make absolute nonsense of the suggestion that the effect of the Chancellor's changed tax structure will be to give the workers the incentive to work overtime?

Mr. Butler: Well, the hon. Member probably knows as much about Income

Tax tables as I do, yet he has deliberately given in this Question and the next two instances of where the reduction in the Tax on overtime work is limited to the reduction produced by the increase in the earned income relief. It was impossible to give a steeper improvement in the amount of the earned income relief. Clearly, there are one or two places in the tables where this occurs, but very few. In the majority of cases there is a distinct advantage on overtime. As the hon. Gentleman will observe, there is a distinct gain here which will be a relief to the man concerned.

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the extra £2 per week is retained by a married man with two children earning £12 per week who increases his earnings to £14 per week; and how much of the extra £2 will be retained by him when the new tax tables come into force.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The difference between the two figures is 5d. This man will have the tax on his pay reduced by 9s. 1d. a week.

Mr. Mikardo: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this sort of thing operates in a large number of cases throughout the tax tables, and is it not now clear that the major purpose of the change was not to give advantage to the middle range of wage earners but to high income earners, and particularly those with high unearned incomes?

Mr. Butler: I have two answers to that. If the hon. Member would interest himself in the man with a wage of £8 a week, a married man with two children who earns an extra £2 would have the tax on that £2 reduced from 5s. 1d. to 1s. I should have thought that that was a certain incentive. Further, in the scheme for which I was responsible, the advantages to those earning over £2,000 a year and higher were very much less than in the tables produced and passed by the House when two of my Socialist predecessors were in office.

Mr. Mikardo: How many workers earning £8 a week does the right hon. Gentleman think will have the least possibility of getting another £2 a week in overtime?

Mr. Butler: It depends entirely on their circumstances. As this scheme was


intended to be fair and to give an opportunity, I say without hesitation that some of the most difficult cases are precisely those of railway workers, whom the hon. Member represents in Parliament.

Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend quote the case of a miner working on a Saturday morning and thereby earning overtime rates of pay which would yield precisely the incentive results that his Budget was intended to provide?

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated total amount paid in Income Tax for the current year by the 2 million persons who are about to be exempted from liability.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on 18th March.

Mr. Mikardo: Is it not clear from that answer that, on average, each of these two million persons will gain by the tax changes a good deal less than they will incur in additional costs as a result of the higher prices resulting from the Chancellor's programme?

Mr. Butler: In the debate last night and on every occasion, hon. Members opposite refuse, for good political reasons of their own, not to calculate the total reliefs and benefits in the Budget but to take those which suit them best. If the hon. Member refers to the answer to which I referred, he will see that between £5 and £6 million in a full year will be saved precisely to these two million people who are relieved from Income Tax.

Mr. Mikardo: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, taking his higher figure of £6 million, it means £3 per annum each, which is only just over 1s. a week? How are these taxpayers to pay for the additional cost of the food for their families out of a shilling a week?

Mr. Butler: That is precisely covered by the terms of the answer I have just given. If the hon. Member takes account of the various other reliefs in the Budget, including family allowances, there is a very considerable help towards those who have to suffer from the extra costs. I have never maintained, and nor have my hon. Friends, that every case can possibly be covered.

D Scheme

Mr. Dodds: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the impossibility of obtaining outsize garments for those of especial dimensions free of Purchase Tax in many of the articles in the proposed D scheme prices, he will consider raising the D level to make this possible.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am afraid I cannot accept the implication in this Question. Whatever the dimensions of the garments, the tax depends only on the price chosen to be paid for them.

Mr. Dodds: How can the right hon. Gentleman justify the scandalous treatment of outsize men and women, who in many categories are denied the purchasing of even the lower standard articles—for example, nightgowns and men's pants?

Mr. Butler: We have a certain interval before the Committee stage of the Finance Bill and, no doubt, I can have a little trying on of these matters with the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) and the hon. Member.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Is the Chancellor aware that under the Utility scheme, special provision was made for outsize garments, but that no mention of it was made in the Douglas Committee Report? In view of the fact that this seems to have been an oversight, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter with the trade in order to get attention drawn to the very difficult position of outsize people?

Mr. Butler: This is a serious point, and I am ready to discuss it with the hon. Member if she so desires. The hon. Lady will, however, remember that before the D scheme was introduced, if an outsize person was unable to choose a garment within the Utility scheme because of size, there was a great jump in price before a suitable garment could be provided, whereas under the D scheme there is a suitable and sensible gradation between the two types of garment.

Mrs. Braddock: While I appreciate his statement, is the Minister aware that in respect of ladies' dresses and blouses, an


additional percentage was allowed in relation to outsize of 7½, 15 and 22½ per cent.? If the matter could be considered on this basis, I am certain that some amicable arrangement could be arrived at.

Mr. Butler: We will certainly look into this.

Mr. John Peyton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the effect of his proposals under the D scheme on the glove manufacturing industry with particular reference to the production of fur backed gloves, non-industrial leather gloves and knitted gloves; and if he will take action to remove the present threat to production and employment in the industry.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am studying the effects of the D scheme on the glove industry and will bear in mind the considerations which my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Mr. Peyton: Can my right hon. Friend say how the D scheme level was arrived at and why no distinction was made between lined and unlined leather gloves, as was made, for instance, in the case of coats and jackets, and why there was no distinction whatever between leather gloves and fur-backed gloves?

Mr. Butler: I realise that there is some difficulty about gloves, particularly those backed with rabbit skin. The D scheme was arrived at as the general median price of the article concerned.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that manufacturers in the glove industry complain that they were not consulted about the extension of the tax in respect of gloves, and that whereas before the Budget most gloves were free from tax, most gloves are now subject to tax? Is the Chancellor aware that there is widespread anxiety in the glove-making districts of Cheshire?

Mr. Butler: It would be a good thing if the anxiety were not too widespread, because not only shall we have to consider these matters, but I am also in some doubt whether the outlook need be quite so gloomy as the hon. Member says.

Brigadier Christopher Peto: In the event of an Amendment being put down to cover this point, would the right hon. Gentleman give it further consideration?

Mr. Speaker: That question is hypothetical.

Mr. H. Hynd: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a Motion on the Order Paper, signed by certain Parliamentary private secretaries and other hon. Members opposite, about the D scheme? If so, what is he going to do about that?
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government immediately to reconsider their proposals with regard to Purchase Tax in order to alleviate the rising unemployment in the textile industry.]

Food Subsidies

Mr. Beswick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost which would be incurred during the present financial year if subsidised foods had been stabilised at March, 1952, prices.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In my Budget statement, I estimated at £50 million the addition to the food subsidies which would be required to hold the prices of subsidised foods at the March, 1952, level. This would have raised the total cost of the subsidies to £460 million.

Mr. Beswick: I asked for a figure for stabilising the figure throughout the year at the March, 1952, prices. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable to give that figure, can he say why Sir Stafford Cripps was able to give such a figure in 1949? Does he not now admit that it would have been much fairer to have compared such a figure with the figure which he mentioned in regard to Sir Stafford Cripps' calculations?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member is going back to those particular discussions, I certainly had no desire to be unfair to Sir Stafford Cripps, as I have taken the opportunity of informing him personally. As regards the answer to the Question, I have as far as I could given the most correct answer to the hon. Member's Question. If there is any discrepancy or mistake, perhaps he will discuss it with me.

British Firms (Emigration)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now permit United Kingdom companies to emigrate to British territories within the sterling area without let or hindrance.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. In any case, this is too large an issue to be dealt with satisfactorily in a Parliamentary answer.

Sir J. Mellor: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that on 21st February the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that this matter would be under review in connection with the Finance Bill, and will he bear in mind that a ring fence keeps capital out as well as in?

Mr. Butler: There is not a ring fence, according to the instructions which are at present being operated, but I agree that this and many other matters will come up for discussion on the later stages of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Does not the absence of any such provision in this year's Finance Bill show that, in the Chancellor's opinion, a great deal of nonsense was talked last year by hon. Members opposite, and particularly by the present Secretary of State for the Colonies?

Mr. Butler: I should not like to confine the nonsense which was talked to one side of the House or the other.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Did the Chancellor say that this matter would come up in connection with the Finance Bill, and do we understand from that that the Government propose to put down new Clauses on this subject?

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman is going a little too far. I have studied several Finance Bills before, and I am certain that every relevant subject will come up. I have not given any indication of any initiative which the Government may take.

Oral Answers to Questions — H.M. DOCKYARDS (PAID LEAVE)

Brigadier Terence Clarke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider allowing a second week's paid holiday to workers in Her Majesty's dockyards commencing in the financial year 1st April, 1952.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The question of allowing a second week of paid leave to

all Government industrial employees, including those in the Royal Dockyards, is now being discussed with the trade unions concerned.

Brigadier Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend not think that this would prove a greater incentive to harder and better work if he introduced it this year?

Mr. Butler: As the Whitley discussions are proceeding. I would rather not go further.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH FINANCE MINISTERS (MEETINGS)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to call a further meeting of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am not in a position to make a statement about a further meeting of Commonwealth Finance Ministers, the date of which must depend, among other things, upon the convenience and commitments of my Commonwealth colleagues.

Mr. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement he has just made will give great satisfaction to a number of traders who still have a little of their export trade left?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. C. R. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has any statement to make about business?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): It is proposed to suspend the Rule, and we hope to make good progress in Committee on the National Health Service Bill today and, if possible, dispose of Clause 1, which will then have been under discussion for two days.
The Committee stage will be continued tomorrow, and I venture to hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will assist in making good progress and in obtaining Clause 2 by a reasonable hour; if so, another day will be provided to finish the Committee stage when the House resumes after Easter.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INCREASED BENEFITS AND PENSIONS)

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): I wish, with permission, to make a short statement relating to National Insurance benefits and pensions.
Following my discussions with industry, the Government have decided to introduce at the earliest possible moment a Bill containing proposals on the lines indicated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement. These proposals are:

(1) an increase in the rate of family allowances from 5s. to 8s. a week;
(2) an increase in National Insurance benefits, including unemployment, sickness and widows' benefits and retirement pension from the present figures of 26s. single and 42s. married to 32s. 6d. single and 54s. married. These higher rates of retirement pension will be paid at the existing ages of 65 for men and 60 for women. They will also be made available to existing pensioners in Great Britain whether they reached pension age before or after 1st October, 1951. In this way we shall get rid of an anomaly, and restore the principle of uniformity in the main rates of benefit;
(3) an increase in the basic rate of industrial injuries benefit from 45s. to 55s.

These proposals will for the first full year cost, for family allowances which come out of the Exchequer about £37 million, and for National Insurance and Industrial Injuries benefits which come out of the Insurance Funds about £60 million and £3 million respectively.
The Bill will also contain consequential alterations to other rates and provision for additional contributions in respect of the insurance benefits. These will be substantially those mentioned by the Chancellor but with adjustments to avoid the inclusion of odd halfpennies which give great inconvenience to employed persons and their employers.
A White Paper will be made available with the Bill explaining the changes proposed.
I hope to bring the new rates of retirement pension into operation at the end

of September, family allowances by the beginning of September, and other improvements such as those for sickness and unemployment towards the end of July. The new rates of contribution would become payable in October.
There is, however, a vast amount of work to be done and a lot of complicated arrangements to be made, but with goodwill in all quarters of the House, I hope we may be able to adhere to this time table.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I find it difficult to equate some of these new benefits and pensions to the increased cost of living, the removal of the food subsidies and the imposition of the health charges. I understand from the Minister that there will be a White Paper which, I take it, will meet all these points, and that we shall be able to discuss it in detail when considering the Bill.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question which I consider of paramount importance to the poorer people of this country. Has he discussed this matter with the Minister of Food in order that these new pensions and benefits will synchronise with the increase in food prices? I see from the statement that these benefits will not operate until late in the year. I understand from the Minister of Food, although he has not committed himself at Question time and has been a little reluctant to commit himself, that he proposes to increase the price of food long before these increases will operate. As this is a very important matter, I should like the Minister, if he can, to tell me what is the position.

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Lady would not expect me to answer for the Minister of Food any details of increases of food prices. I can only say, in regard to my proposals, that we are bringing each one of these improvements into operation at the earliest possible date from the administrative point of view.

Mr. James Carmichael: The Minister indicated that there would be an increase for single persons with 26s. and for a couple with 42s. Will he give some indication of the increase that will be granted to a single person drawing 30s. at the moment and a couple drawing 50s.?

Mr. Peake: I thought that I had made it plain that we were restoring uniformity


of rates by raising both of these classes to 32s. 6d. and 54s., respectively. The hon. Member will bear in mind that, under the arrangements for which the last Government were responsible, there are persons coming on to retirement pension today at 26s. per week, and they will get a 25 per cent. increase on their pension rate.

Mr. Frederick Lee: In view of the fact that the cost of living has increased quite a lot since the Chancellor's statement, will the right hon. Gentleman try to make arrangements whereby the retirement pension increase will take effect from the date of the Budget?

Mr. Peake: I am afraid that is quite impossible. None of my predecessors in this office has ever found it possible to make increases in pensions retroactive.[An HON. MEMBER: "What about the doctors?"] This is an insurance scheme; that is the difference.

Mr. Tom Brown: Can the Minister say if the Government proposed to do anything to assist the non-contributory pensioner, who did not get an increase on the last occasion, because there is grave disquiet in the country among these people, who think that they ought at least to have some consideration in view of the fact that the rising cost of living is now having its effect upon them?

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) last year did not do anything for the noncontributory pensioner. We have nothing to do with the non-contributory pensioner in the National Insurance Scheme. The whole of their money for pensions

comes out of the Exchequer, and the pensions themselves are administered by the Assistance Board. They will benefit to the extent that they are being supplemented today by the rise in the Assistance scales which I announced yesterday.

Mr. Brown: On the application of the proposal now submitted to the House, would it not be better if the Minister indicated to the House and to the country that the increased rates amount to 2s. 6d. and 4s., instead of saying that it is going up from 26s. to 32s. 6d. and from 42s. to 54s.?

Mr. Peake: No, Sir, I regard it as a perfectly indefensible and intolerable anomaly that persons attaining the pension age under this Government should obtain a lower pension than they obtained if they reached the pension age before 1st October last year, and I gather that throughout the country there has been a widespread desire to see uniformity.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall have a White Paper. There is no Question before the House at the moment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the National Health Service Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 260.

Division No. 65.]
AYES
[3.40 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bennett, William (Woodside)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Alport, C. J. M.
Birch, Nigel
Carson, Hon. E.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bishop, F. P.
Cary, Sir Robert


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Black, C. W.
Channon, H.


Arbuthnot, John
Boothby, R. J. G.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Bossom, A. C.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bowen, E. R.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cole, Norman


Baker, P. A. D.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Colegate, W. A.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Braine, B. R.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Baldwin, A. E.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Barber, A. P. L.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Barlow, Sir John
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Cranborne, Viscount


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Brooman-White, R. C.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Bullard, D. G.
Crouch, R. F.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Bullock, Capt. M.
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Burden, F. F. A.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Butcher, H. W.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)




Davidson, Viscountess
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Deedes, W. F.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lambton, Viscount
Profumo, J. D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Raikes, H. V.


Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Donner, P. W.
Leather, E. H. C.
Redmayne, M.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Drewe, C.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)


Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir I. (Richmond)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Robertson, Sir David


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lindsay, Martin
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Duthie, W. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Robson-Brown, W.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Roper, Sir Harold


Erroll, F. J.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fell, A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Russell, R. S.


Finlay, Graeme
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert (Harts, S.W.)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Low, A. R. W.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Fort, R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Scott, R. Donald


Foster, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Shepherd, William


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McAdden, S. J.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McCallum, Major D.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Gammons, L. D.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Snadden, W. McN.


Glyn, Sir Ralph
McKibbin, A. J.
Soames, Capt. C.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Gough, C. F. H.
Maclay, Hon. John
Speir, R. M.


Gower, H. R.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Grimond, J.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Stevens, G. P.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Harden, J. R. E.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Storey, S.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Markham, Major S. F.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marples, A. E.
Studholme, H. G.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Summers, G. S.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Sutcliffe, H.


Hay, John
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Maudling, R.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Heald, Sir Lionel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Teeling, W.


Heath, Edward
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mellor, Sir John
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Molson, A. H. E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Tilney, John


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Touche, G. C.


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nicholls, Harmar
Turner, H. F. L.


Hope, Lord John
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Turton, R. H.


Hopkinson, Henry
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Vane, W. M. F.


Horobin, I. M.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Vaughan-Morgan. J. K.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nutting, Anthony
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Oakshott, H. D.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Odey, G. W.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hurd, A. R.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wellwood, W.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Osborne, C.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Partridge, E.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Jennings, R.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wills, G.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Peto, Brig C. H. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Peyton, J. W. W.
York, C.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.



Kaberry, D.
Pitman, I. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Keeling, Sir Edward
Powell, J. Enoch
Major Conant and Mr. Vosper.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Awbery, S. S.
Benn, Wedgwood


Adams, Richard
Bacon, Miss Alice
Benson, G.


Albu, A. H.
Baird, J.
Beswick, F.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Balfour, A.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Bing, G. H. C.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bence, C. R.
Blackburn, F.







Blenkinsop, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Blyton, W. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Porter, G.


Boardman, H.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hobson, C. R.
Price, Philips, (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bowden, H. W.
Holman, P.
Proctor, W. T.


Bowles, F. G.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Pryde, D. J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Houghton, Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Brockway, A. F.
Hoy, J. H.
Rankin, John


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hubbard, T. F.
Reeves, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Burke, W. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Callaghan, L. J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Carmichael, J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Ross, William


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Janner, B.
Royle, C.


Champion, A. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Chapman, W. D.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Clunie, J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Short, E. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Coldrick, W.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Collick, P. H.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Slater, J.


Cook, T. F.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cove, W. G.
Keenan, W.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, C.
Snow, J. W.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
King, Dr. H. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Kinley, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Steele, T.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lewis, Arthur
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lindgren, G. S.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Deer, G.
Logan, D. G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Dodds, N. N.
MacColl, J. E.
Swingler, S. T.


Donnelly, D. L.
McGhee, H. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McInnes, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Edelman, M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Timmons, J.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tomney, F.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Ewart, R.
Manuel, A. C.
Viant, S. P.


Fernyhough, E.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wallace, H. W.


Field, W. J.
Mayhew, C. P.
Watkins, T. E.


Fienburgh, W.
Mellish, R. J.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford C.)


Finch, H. J.
Messer, F.
Weitzman, D.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Follick, M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Foot, M. M.
Monslow, W.
West, D. G.


Forman, J. C.
Moody, A. S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morley, R.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. (Lewisham, S.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Glanville, James
Mort, D. L.
Wigg, George


Gooch, E. G.
Moyle A.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Murray, J. D.
Wilkins, W. A.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Nally, W.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Neal Harold (Bolsover)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Grenfell Rt. Hon. D. R.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Grey, C. F.
Oldfield, W. H.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Orbach, M.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Oswald, T.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Padley, W. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paget, R. T.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hamilton, W. W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wyatt, W. L.


Hardy, E. A.
Pannell, Charles
Yates, V. F.


Hargreaves, A.
Pargiter, G. A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Parker, J.



Hastings, S.
Paton, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, A.
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Hannan


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Peart, T. F.



Question put, and agreed to.

CARE OF SENILE PERSONS (SCOTLAND)

3.53 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit in Scotland the reception into and maintenance in mental hospitals and similar institutions for the purpose of care and attention of senile persons without certification of insanity or lunacy; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
This is a small Bill to right a very big wrong, and it concerns a very grave problem that confronts us all, although I have devoted this Bill to Scotland only. It concerns the problem of our aged population. I do not think that this Bill would have been necessary if, 20 years ago, this problem had been approached in the correct way. Twenty years ago, a leading mental specialist in Scotland urged local authorities to make provisions in mental institutions for an ageing population. In other words, he confronted local authorities with the fact that people were living longer. The Psalmist says:
The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow.
Our leading mental specialist foresaw the sorrow, because ever since our aged people in Scotland have been put into mental institutions and certified as lunatics. The only way in which they can obtain a bed is by their being certified as lunatics.
This has caused distress to families and relatives. Many Members of the House will know that when a person applies for a post there is often this question, "Is there lunacy in the family?" There is something similar in connection with insurance and the answer must be "Yes" merely because an old lady of, perhaps, 84 has been sent into a mad-house and certified as being of unsound mind.

Sir William Darling: On a point of order. Is this not a matter for a grant-in-aid? As this Bill deals with a financial matter, is it therefore in order to discuss it now?

Mrs. Mann: I am informed that it is, and if I am allowed to finish within the 10 minutes, I hope to show that it will not involve any finance.
We have known of marriages being cancelled because someone does not want

to marry a person whose mother died insane or whose father was certified as a lunatic. It is not something which we can anticipate will diminish. Indeed, it is increasing, and I find, from replies giving the number of people in our mental hospitals, that in Woodilee Asylum, where there are 1,200 beds, there are 450 people over 60 years of age and 365 over 65 years of age. If I take a group of four I find that there are more than 25 per cent., and there are 30 per cent. over 65 who really ought to be certified as senile, but are certified as insane.
I seek in this Bill nothing more than to have the stigma removed. It would fail in its purpose if it were not followed up by strong administrative action to take the 25 per cent. and regroup and reclassify them in one group. Instead of Woodilee Mental Hospital we should have Lenzie Eventide Home and the stigma of residence, nomenclature and certification removed. I beg the House to give me permission to introduce this Bill.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. David Logan: I wish to oppose the Bill. In doing so I do not want to refer to anything that may be irrelevant, but anyone with hospital experience knows very well that the very thing which my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) wishes to avoid is one of the difficulties which is likely to arise. My hon. Friend is introducing a Bill
to permit in Scotland the reception into and maintenance in mental hospitals and similar institutions …
She does not advocate the abolition of mental institutions but, instead, she speaks of the
care and attention of senile persons without certification of insanity or lunacy.
That means that we are still to have the entry of the aged into mental homes. We are to have the difficulty of making a home for aged people and in the same home there are to be those who are mentally certified. In other words, we are to have the aged father and the aged mother, who are not mentally certified, put into a hospital where there will be certified cases, so the stigma will remain.
My hon. Friend's idea is good, if segregation is intended, but this is not a proposal for segregation. It is for the


continuation of an evil that is already in existence. It does not remove the evil. We want to get rid of the system of aged and infirm people being placed in mental institutions. I have some knowledge of this matter because, for at least 25 years, I had experience of Poor Law administration, and I have continued that experience as a member of the local asylums committee. What the Bill proposes would be an entirely wrong procedure. We had a case only a few weeks ago which gave us great difficulty, of a person who was aged and suffering from senile decay. She was a very respected person with children. The stigma of the mother having to go into a mental institution of this description was created simply because we had not a proper place for aged people.
The system by which mental and non-mental cases are all put together in the same institution is a disgrace. Segregation is absolutely essential. I am not opposed in principle to the creation of proper homes with proper care for aged people. When one has passed into the later period of life, having given good service to the nation and having had children, one deserves something better at the hands of the community than being placed in a mental institution.
I am, therefore, opposed to the Bill, not because I think it is a step in the wrong direction, but because I think that the object it sets out to achieve cannot be attained in the way proposed. I have had practical experience of this matter, and I am fully convinced that the time has now arrived to set up special institutions for our aged people, quite apart from mental cases. The two classes of persons do not belong together.

Mrs. Mann: Would my hon. Friend try to get his ideas into the Bill during the Committee stage?

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Jean Mann, Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton, Colonel Gomme-Duncan, Mr. Niall Macpherson. Mr. McInnes, Mr. Hector Hughes, and Mr. Bence.

CARE OF SENILE PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL

"to permit in Scotland the reception into and maintenance in mental hospitals and similar institutions for the purpose of care and attention of senile persons without certification of insanity or lunacy; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon 25th April, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 3rd April].

[Colonel Six CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(CHARGES FOR CERTAIN DRUGS, MEDICINES AND APPLIANCES.)

4.4 p.m.

Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: On a point of order. I desire to seek your guidance, Sir Charles, on a question of procedure. At the commencement of the Committee stage of the Bill last Thursday, I raised a point of order, and you were good enough to give your Ruling. When you had answered my question, you proceeded to put before us a proposal of your own. As I now understand it, that proposal was that when we reached the second Amendment now on the Order Paper, that is to say, the Amendment in page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert "other than artificial limbs," we could discuss with it the subsequent 13 Amendments, down to, and including the Amendment in page 1, line 9, relating to trusses for hernia.
I think I am right in saying that that was the first occasion of a Chairman of a Committee being willing to allow such a large number of Amendments to be taken together for the purpose of debate. Your proposal therefore came to us as a surprise, and was not readily accepted by the Committee. I have since discussed the matter with some of my hon. Friends. I need hardly tell you that we think that there is a very good case for taking separately each of the Amendments to which I have referred, but I understand that that course would not be acceptable to you because you are compelled by Standing Orders to exercise your right of selection.
That being so, I think that it would be in the best interest of Members on all sides of the Committee if we took those 14 Amendments together for the purpose of debate, and at the conclusion of the debate, if the Government reject any of the Amendments, for you to allow a certain number of Divisions. May I

ask whether you would be willing to renew the kind offer which you made to us last Thursday, and whether you would give your Ruling on the matter of Divisions at the end of the debate in question?

The Chairman: I thank the hon. Member for very kindly giving me notice that he was going to raise this matter again. I selected four Amendments at the end of line 9, designed to include various appliances. In view of the fact that many hon. Members on both sides of the House who wanted to speak on the Second Reading were disappointed, it might be for the convenience of the Committee if the debate on the first Amendment were wide enough to range over all these various appliances. At the end of this debate the Committee could divide on four of the Amendments if they wish to do so. I shall call the Amendments in the order that they appear on the Order Paper, and should there be four Divisions I shall then call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer), in page 1, line 9, at the end to insert:
Provided that no such charge for an appliance shall exceed one-quarter of its cost to the Minister or the sum of one pound whichever be the less.

Dr. Barnett Stross: On the Second Reading, the Minister was asked which of the surgical appliances would bear the charge, and he specifically mentioned four of them. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee will feel compelled to divide on those four, but we might be eased out of our problem and difficulty today if the Minister, having told us on Second Reading that he would make charges on only four, would give us some reassurance that between now and the Report stage he would consider bringing forward an Amendment to make it quite clear that he does not intend to charge for the others that we have had to list to protect ourselves. If the Minister will do this—apparently this was his intention—it will ease our problem this afternoon

Mr. Frederick Messer: Might I ask a question, Sir Charles? I take it that the number of Amendments you mentioned does not include the one standing in my name to insert a proviso?

The Chairman: No, the proviso is a different one. After the four Divisions I propose to go straight to the Amendment


of the hon. Gentleman. The question of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) is one for the Minister, not for me.

Miss Margaret Herbison: You have suggested, Sir Charles, that the debate can range very wide, so that we shall be able to bring in the various Amendments. Many hon. Members on this side of the Committee would also like to know that there will be adequate time given to this debate, and that the Closure will not be moved as quickly as it was both times last Thursday, when there were still many hon. Members who wished to take part in the debate.

The Chairman: The acceptance of the Closure is entirely in the hands of the Chair, and if the Chair thinks there has been adequate discussion, the Chair is willing to accept it.

Dr. Stross: You said, Sir Charles, that the matter I raised was essentially one for the Minister. May I suggest to you, with respect, that I am asking for your protection against the Minister, and I do so with some confidence. The position is this. If, having received a verbal promise on the Floor of the Committee on the four kinds of surgical appliances, the Minister is not willing to say that he will include them at the next stage, how are we to trust him, how can we give up our rights, and how are you to assist us in the matter?

The Chairman: I cannot see how I could assist hon. Members in the matter.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: On a point of order, Sir Charles. I am particularly interested in one kind of appliance. The Minister was kind enough to say during the Second Reading that he would not include hearing aids among those to be charged for, but unless something is put into the Bill to that effect, how can I know that there may not be a complete change in what he proposes to do?

The Chairman: That question is one which will come up in due course as we proceed with the Committee stage of the Bill. I cannot pretend to answer it, because I do not know the answer.

Mr. John Baird: But how can hon. Members show their disapproval if we cannot divide on these Amendments?

The Chairman: I do not quite understand that question.

Mr. Baird: If you accept only four Amendments for Division, Sir Charles, how can we show our disapproval of the others?

The Chairman: It appears to be acceptable to the Committee that as soon as we have had four Divisions we shall go on to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer).

Mr. Baird: That means, then, that hon. Members on this side of the Committee will be limited as to the number of Amendments on which they can disclose their point of view.

The Chairman: No, they will not be limited as to the number of Amendments on which they can express their point of view, but they will be limited as to the number they can divide on.

Mr. Baird: But they can only disclose their point of view in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Tom Brown: It would be for the convenience for both sides of the Committee, Sir Charles, if we could have an assurance from the Minister on what he is prepared to accept and what he is prepared to reject. It is no use our wasting time discussing Amendments on the Order Paper if, at the end of the day, the Minister tells us that between now and the Report stage he will consider the proposals we put before him. May I ask the Minister to give us a reply to the question we have put to him?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): On a point of order. I am very ready to do so, Sir Charles, but I did not see how I could do it on a point of order. If an Amendment were moved, I could say what was necessary, but it is not a point of order. That was the only reason for my hesitancy.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I do so simply to enable the right hon. Gentleman to make the statement he wants to make.

The Chairman: I think we had better start with the Amendment of the right


hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand). If the first Amendment is carried, the other 14 will not arise.

Mr. Marquand: I am rather confused, Sir Charles. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) rightly pointed out that, as we have been given no guarantee and there is no terminal point to this Bill, it is important for us to ensure, not merely in regard to the right hon. Gentleman but in regard to any possible successor of his, that certain appliances which, we think, should never in any circumstance be charged for, shall be discussed and shall be included in the Bill in such a way as to prevent any possibility of charges for the future. There is involved here not merely the question of the immediate intentions of the right hon. Gentleman in any regulations which he may bring forward, but also our desire to protect for the future the users of various appliances from any possibility of the imposition of a charge. At the moment we are rather confused as to how we stand on the point of principle.

4.15 p.m.

The Chairman: All I can say is that I have called the right hon. Gentleman to move his Amendment—[An HON. MEMBER: "He has moved a Motion."]—I have not accepted it. If the Amendment is carried, then all the 14 other Amendments fall because all appliances will be left out.

Mr. Baird: On a point of order. Would the Minister be in order in replying to my question, Sir Charles?

The Chairman: That is not a question for me.

Mr. Marquand: If I move my Amendment, recognising that you have not accepted the Motion I have just moved, Sir Charles, I hope it will be open for me at the conclusion of the debate on that subject, if I still need further clarification, to move to report Progress so that we may know what the position is on the subsequent Amendments, assuming that the Minister might refuse to accept my Motion.

The Chairman: I cannot give any promise that I will or will not accept any Motion.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: May I put this point, Sir Charles? I think it is a little discourteous of the Minister of Health. The right hon. Gentleman said he was prepared to make a statement to clarify the position, but was not in a position to do so because there was no Motion before the Committee. My right hon. Friend had no intention of obstructing. To help the Minister, he moved a Motion and you, Sir Charles, have refused to accept it.

The Chairman: I refused to accept the Motion to report Progress, but I have called an Amendment. Once it is moved, perhaps the Minister will reply.

Mr. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "or appliances."
You have already said, Sir Charles, that if this Amendment were accepted the 14 other Amendments about appliances would be unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman himself, earlier this afternoon, in a statement which he made to the House, as distinct from this Committee, said he hoped that hon. Members in all parts would co-operate in speeding up the consideration of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has now been given a golden opportunity of setting an example in this respect. If he will accept this Amendment, we shall have made some progress because the 14 other Amendments will not be necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman has also shown that in this field of the Bill, at any rate, he is prepared to listen to representations. When the proposal to make charges of this kind was first announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) drew his attention and that of the House to the hardship which would be caused to old people in general, and to old age pensioners in particular, by imposing a charge on hearing aids. The Minister has since told the House that when he brings forward his regulations he has decided not to impose such charges. In that respect he has listened to the voice of public opinion.
Since then, looking at the whole thing again, he has gone even further than that and said that when he introduces his regulations he will impose charges on


four types of appliances only. Now as a result of imposing charges on four sorts of appliances only we understand that he hopes to get a saving from this part of the Bill of only £250,000. That is not a very large contribution towards closing the inflationary gap. To accept this Amendment would not greatly affect the purpose which he has told us he has chiefly in mind—the reduction of Government expenditure; it would reduce it by only £250,000.
Perhaps this afternoon the Minister will think again. Perhaps he will harken a little to the voice of public opinion which has expressed itself in recent days in the London County Council and other elections. I hope that the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), will add his voice to mine on this occasion. He must have listened rather closely to the voice of Middlesex when it was expressed in recent local elections. Perhaps he will come forward now and make a speech on this Bill.
Hitherto, the speeches with which he has regaled us have been addressed principally to the Bill I introduced last year. We should like to hear from him what he thinks about these charges. Rumour has it that he played a significant part behind the scenes in securing certain Amendments to the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has put down, and I hope that he will strive to add to his score this afternoon.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong on that point. He really must not judge this party by his own. Our private meetings remain private, and, consequently, the Press have to guess at what takes place. On this, as on many other occasions, they guessed wrongly.

Mr. Marquand: I am sorry to find that the hon. Gentleman has not a kind heart after all. He sits there looking very stern, but I thought that was perhaps a poker face—I am not sure what a bridge face may be—for concealing warm emotions, and that he had been active in this matter.
What I wish to draw attention to particularly is that on this Clause we are dealing only with appliances supplied through the hospital and specialist services, yet we were told by the right hon. Gentleman that there was abuse. I think

we are entitled to ask for a further explanation of how there has been abuse in the supply of appliances through consultants at the hospitals. On 27th March the right hon. Gentleman said:
there have been a good many cases of alleged abuse reported."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 850.]
That is not a very emphatic statement, and it certainly is not very convincing.
If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept this simple Amendment, which would cost him so very little of the money he aims to save, I hope that he will bring forward more evidence than he has done hitherto and explain to us how abuse can arise in a situation like this. Music-hall jokes about wigs are not enough for this purpose. We want to know how orders which must be signed by a consultant who has examined the patient can be an abuse of the service. We believe that every one of the appliances named in the list of Amendments which have been put down, supplied through the hospital and specialist services, is essential to the needs of patients.
Moreover, because I was responsible for it for a considerable time, I happen to know very well that all these appliances are procured by the Minister of Pensions on behalf of the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. They are bought by an organisation within the Ministry of Pensions. Not only are the goods themselves essential and prescribed by a specialist, but the quality and type of manufacture of the goods are controlled by the Minister of Pensions.
I remember very well that when I was Minister of Pensions, and my officials were making an annual review of what they procured for the Minister of Health for this purpose during the previous 12 months, many Questions were provoked. There was a great discussion; the Surgical Instrument Manufacturers' Association made representations, and many hon. Members opposite put down a lot of Questions to me about the price that was being offered for tender for these types of goods.
Fortunately, the attempt of the Surgical Instrument Manufacturers' Association to ensure that no member tendered except after approval by the Association did not come off: that particular piece of restrictive practice did not come off, and certain substantial manufacturers properly


and patriotically tendered at prices which my Department had decided were reasonable.
With that type of scrutiny going on, with the experts of the Ministry of Pensions, who for 30 years have been responsible for supplying appliances to war pensioners, in charge of the procurement of appliances for the Health Service, I do not believe that it is possible for any abuse to creep in at that end. Nor do I see how it is possible for abuse to creep in at the point where the specialist himself, examining a patient, prescribes a particular appliance as absolutely necessary for that patient's welfare.
We here face a very grave risk, where patients are obliged to pay half of the cost of their appliance—and some of them are fairly expensive articles—either of patients being afraid to go to the hospital and submit themselves to the examination which results in the prescription of an appliance, or of patients deferring their return to hospital when the appliance becomes worn out.
When I was Minister of Pensions I put on view in my office at Blackpool an exhibition of artificial limbs which had actually been taken from National Health Service patients. I know that artificial limbs are not likely to be charged by the right hon. Gentleman, but I mention this by way of a perfectly fair illustration. The artificial limbs actually taken from the old men and old women when they came in, when the Health Service had given them the opportunity to obtain properly made limbs free of charge, were completely shocking.
I published a photograph of them in the annual report of the Ministry of Pensions, showing completely unsuitable contraptions—there is not other word for them—bolted together with bits of wire and tied up with string; too heavy, too awkward, and in many cases—it is sad to think so, but it is true—in a disgustingly insanitary condition because these poor old people quite unable to pay even part of the cost of such appliances, had gone on wearing them for years.
Some had gone to incompetent manufacturers in the first place; or even when they got a good appliance they had to try to make it last so long, because they could not afford to pay for another, that the thing was positively injurious to their

physical condition, and causing them to walk wrongly, and so on. Some of these people were confined to very short journeys indeed because the appliance was such that it could be used for only short periods because of the acute discomfort. That is the sort of danger which arises from a proposal to charge for appliances of the type which we are considering this afternoon There is the danger of failure to get the appliance, or the danger of using an inadequate, monstrous appliance for too long, and we are asked to run a risk of that kind for the sake of saving only £250,000.
I do not want to speak long because I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to submit expert evidence from their own experience on hospital boards and the like. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will now expedite our proceedings by accepting this fair and reasonable Amendment in the spirit in which I have tried to advance the argument for it and thus shorten our debate.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Crookshank: I am only too ready to assist the Committee. I was in some difficulty earlier on as to whether it was proper to say anything at all. I certainly was not responsible for putting the Committee into any state of confusion, as it was alleged to be 10 minutes ago. I think that if the Committee gets into confusion it will be for somewhat different reasons. It seemed to be really a question of raising different points of order about the Amendments, and I took no part in that at all.
I feel that I was quite clear in my statement on the Second Reading of what was intended. If my statement was not clear, I can only repeat it. I must say, looking again in HANSARD, that it does not seem to me to be anything but perfectly clear. I pointed out that a great many rumours and exaggerations had got about on the subject of the appliances, and I said specifically that we had no intention of dealing with artificial legs or arms. Then I specifically mentioned the four categories which were intended to come within the scope of the Bill.
The first category was surgical boots and their repair. I informed the House that the proposed charge would be £3 a pair and that there would be a charge for


repair—in the case of women between 6s. and 13s. 6d. and for men between 8s. and 13s. 6d. The second category was surgical abdominal supports, and there I said that we proposed to charge £1. That was the only case—surgical abdominal supports—in which I made any reference to abuse at all. The right hon. Gentleman objects to that word. It is not a matter on which I have any figures available, I regret to say, but there have been a certain number of borderline cases, shall we say, where we understand that some pressure has from time to time been brought to bear for permitting the use of some supports which were not very far removed from ordinary corsets. I think that must be within the general knowledge of hon. Members.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: To whom is the right hon. Gentleman referring when he speaks of abuses?

Mr. Crookshank: Those who go to the consultants, I presume. One has heard that. That is all I meant to say.

Mr. Baird: There is a Central Health Services Council, with advisory duties. Can the right hon. Gentleman say if that body or any other responsible body has submitted any proof at all of any abuses?

Mr. Crookshank: No, I do not think they have, but I have been advised that there have been a good many what might be called borderline cases.

Mrs. Braddock: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to borderline cases. Is it not for the specialist service to decide whether or not they are borderline cases? Is not the responsibility in this matter wholly with the specialist services that we employ in various hospitals throughout the country? Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the specialist services will allow pressure to be brought to bear on them to supply articles in borderline cases which are unnecessary?

Mr. Crookshank: There may be such occasions. This is only a small charge, and this is one of four groups of appliances in which it is proposed to impose a charge.

Mr. Hector McNeil: This is an important point, which obviously interests the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman has any medical evidence

suggesting that there has been improper pressure or abuse of this facility, then I think he has an obligation to submit it to the Committee. If, on the other hand, he has not, I suggest that he should clear the consultant service by saying that he has no evidence of abuse.

Mr. Crookshank: I have said that I have no figures or anything of that kind, but that view is still held in many quarters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which quarters?"] I shall listen to any arguments which are put forward during the course of the debate. That is the only instance in which I used the word, and I thought I might as well explain why I had used those words that were attributed to me—that there had been a certain number of borderline cases or whatever we like to call them.
The third item is elastic hosiery, on which it is proposed to charge 5s. and 10s., and the fourth category is wigs, on which the proposed charge is £2 10s. That is all that I said on the Second Reading, and that is all that is now proposed. I have no intention whatever of asking the Committee to agree to any charges on anything else. I hope that is a clear enough answer to the question which the right hon. Gentleman put to me.
The issue which is raised is whether or not this Amendment should be accepted which takes out the word "appliances" from the Bill altogether. In other words, hon. Members opposite do not wish any charge to be made for any appliance. That is the point at issue between us. We wish to bring the charges for the service within the ceiling which the Government has deemed to be right—and, of course, the use of a ceiling in this field is not novel; it was adopted by our predecessors.
We were seeing how we could keep the general cost below that ceiling with the least possible disadvantage. After all, like everybody else, I agree that if we had no ceilings and could spend all we wanted to spend, no doubt we could do a great many things which we should like to do, but common prudence and the fact that we have to have some regard to the expenditure of public money makes it impossible.
Therefore, we have been looking to see how we can keep below that ceiling and


do the least possible damage. This is one of the measures to that end. The right hon. Gentleman said that £250,000 is not very much to save. I agree it is not very much, but it is something. Together with the other items, it enables us to bring the general cost below the ceiling. Therefore, I ask the Committee to keep the word "appliances" in the Bill. That is the issue between us. When I am asked what are the appliances on which there are to be charges, the answer is that they are those four—surgical boots and repairs, abdominal supports, elastic hosiery and wigs.
If I may take the matter a little further, it might be that hon. Members opposite would agree to leave the word "appliances" in the Bill, but according to the Amendments on the Paper they want specifically to exempt a whole series of different things, including, of course, those on which we propose to make a charge. They want each one of them specifically excluded, and a lot of other things as well.
My answer to that general group of Amendments—although they are not actually before the Committee it is part of the argument I am submitting—is that this is just the kind of thing to leave to regulatory powers, so long as there are regulatory powers. There are those powers introduced by the original Act by which, for example, charges on prescriptions given by the general practitioner will come before the House in the form of regulations and the Government came to the conclusion that if we were to make charges for appliances the same practice should be used. Therefore, the regulatory power, rather than the actual enactment in the Bill, was the most convenient form of proceeding.
Instead of putting a series of exemptions in this Clause, I ask that when the time comes that should not be done but that the word "appliances" should stand part—although, by this Amendment hon. Members want to remove it—and that we should keep the power of making charges for appliances by regulation. The regulation which will come forward under this Clause will cover the four, and only the four, things I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, which I repeated today and which, I think, are now clear beyond a peradventure.

Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: The recent demonstration for industrial action in the constituency I represent in the Rhondda Valley is indicative of the mood there towards the charges proposed in this Bill. It may be judged to be an unreasonable mood that has been expressed in the recent boycott of Saturday working, but at least it is a mood and I think that if the measures proposed by the Minister are to be applied they will cause a great deal of irritation among the most important section of the community—the industrial workers.
From what I have seen of it, the proposal to make charges for appliances is bound to cause a great deal of hardship to industrial workers, particularly in the heavy industries. In the industry with which I am connected, and have been connected for more than 30 years—the mining industry—there is a very high accident rate. In fact, 33 per cent. of the injuries and accidents under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act—a third of the total throughout the country—occur in the mining industry.
From my personal knowledge I know that there are several hundreds of men in the mining industry who have suffered very severely. They have had their bodies severely mangled, deformed, twisted and fractured as a result of following this most arduous occupation. Apart from men totally disabled and remaining out of employment, a very large percentage of men, despite their physical disabilities, are anxious to get back to the point of production. I know of many men who have to wear a type of industrial harness to maintain themselves in employment.
4.45 p.m.
Let it be noted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on more than one occasion, has been very flattering and complimentary to the miners. The Committee are fully aware of the extent to which the miners are responding to the appeals made from both sides of the House to assist the Government and the country in emerging from the present crisis. What does the Minister consider would be the reaction of these men, who are not only working five days a week from Monday to Friday but also on Saturday and Sunday, and putting their whole effort into the job, when they meet


with an accident and its nature is such that they require some type of industrial appliance to maintain them in work? What is likely to be the reaction of such men in such an important industry?
When I speak of the coal industry I am not unmindful of men in the other heavy industries in the country, but my illustrations are drawn from the mining industry because I am so near to it. Provisions made by the National Coal Board for the maintenance and replacement of machinery are well known to all hon. Members. If a jigger, a coal cutter, or a belt is worn out, or fractured, there are facilities and means of replacement out of moneys set aside by the Board, which, after all, is the national wealth, to provide for replacements.
But when we come to the human factor in the industry, the man who, by his efforts and enthusiasm, meets with an accident and has to obtain surgical supports, anyone acquainted with the mining industry in particular and other industries generally knows full well the very high incidence of hernia cases which occur.
The imposition of this charge will not be an incentive but a deterrent, because the greater effort the man who has been disabled as a result of a severe accident makes to fit himself for replacement in the mining industry the more it will cost him. There are many men in the heavy industries—hundreds in the coal mines—who are able to carry on in employment and respond to the appeal of the Chancellor only because they wear a support to enable them to continue their work. That being so, why should the Government at this or any other stage impose this charge upon willing men who want to be maintained in employment not only to preserve their standard of life, but to make their contribution towards national recovery?
At the time the Clause was drafted, I do not know whether the Minister was fully conscious that it would have this far-reaching effect and of the punitive implications of this imposition upon such a body as I refer to, the industrial workers. The charge now to be imposed is, I think, cruelly unjust. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the men in heavy industries, to reconsider the matter and accept the arguments

which have been, and will be, advanced for this Amendment.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: After listening to what the Minister of Health said just now, it is very difficult to escape the impression that the Government are desirous of making charges on the National Health Service for purely doctrinal reasons; that they appear to think that there is something wholly bad about a free Health Service, and that no matter how flimsy the pretext, charges should be made. That is the only conclusion one can reach from what has been said.
No substantial argument has been advanced that this proposal is necessary to obtain finance. The whole of the appliances, as I believe, including appliances made by the Ministry of Pensions amounting to about £4 million a year, the whole of the cost of the charges now proposed to be made, about £250,000, is out of the total hospital expenditure of £230 million. It is very hard to listen to those figures without coming to the conclusion that the members of the Tory Party represented by the Government are concerned primarily about breeching the principle of free service rather than collecting revenue for the State.

Mr. Ellis Smith: With the support of their back benchers.

Mr. Bevan: I am astonished that hon. Members sitting behind the Minister have allowed it to go on. I can understand hon. Members taking the view that certain policies are right and for the welfare of the State and should be proceeded with despite their temporary unpopularity. That is a perfectly proper point of view which any responsible public man must face from time to time. Very often, to use Tennyson's phrase, he has to
Await the far off interest of tears
and to apply that principle although, for the moment, it is to his electoral disadvantage. But for the life of me I cannot see any justification for inflicting inconvenience upon large numbers of people without any corresponding financial advantage. It is most astonishing, and I am amazed that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen of such long public experience should expose themselves to such electoral disadvantage for such a ridiculous reason. I should have thought


that they would reconsider the whole matter.
When the right hon. Gentleman said that this proposal was necessary to keep within the ceiling—once more we are back to King Charles's head—he did not seem sufficiently to appreciate the fact that the ceiling has already gone. Is he really seriously proposing to assimilate the £10 million a year increase for general practitioners within the ceiling? I should like an answer to that. Is he intending to do it? I should like to know. I am prepared to give way to the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I do not want to embarrass him; I merely want to put the Committee in possession of the facts.

Mr. Crookshank: I have already put the Committee in possession of the facts. What I was trying to remember was exactly which occasion it was when I pointed out that the adjudication—which has nothing to do with this, Sir Charles, but I hope you will allow me to reply to the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman said "ceiling."

Mr. Crookshank: —the adjudication covered, of course, what would be the charge for the year 1950–51 plus the preceding and subsequent years. The charge for the current year was somewhere in the region of £10 million and there was some little room for manœuvre, if I might use the right hon. Gentleman's own words. That is to say, the ceiling had not been quite reached under the Estimates for this year and it would therefore be very little exceeded, so far as I can see at present, by the addition of this £10 million. It would probably be slightly exceeded—

Dr. Stross: May I put this to the Minister? His words at the end of his explanation on the matter were:
That is on the assumption that the £30 million payable next year is taken out of this account altogether. That is the assumption I made; it is not to be counted against the ceiling."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 859.]

Mr. Bevan: I am not speaking of the £30 million at all. It is perfectly clear from what the right hon. Gentleman said on a previous occasion that he was not expecting to reach £30 million out of his

ceiling. I am talking about the £10 million. It would be quite unreasonable for the Chancellor to expect the right hon. Gentleman to find £30 million. That would "bust" the whole hospital service. I am not talking about that. I am speaking about the £10 million. What we would like to know is whether, assuming that the Chancellor finds the £30 million, the right hon. Gentleman intends to find the £10 million within the ceiling.

Mr. Crookshank: May I continue with my quotation? I think I put it perfectly clearly. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not present—oh, I see he interrupted in one sentence, so he must have been here:
The conclusion is that it is not the intention of the Government, as a result of the Danckwerts award, to increase any of the charges I have mentioned in connection with this Bill and that if, as a result of this award and the £10 million or so next year, the figure of £400 million is surpassed in 1952–3 that is a situation which we shall all have to accept."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 860.]

Mr. Bevan: That really shows the frivolous irrelevancy of the reference by the right hon. Gentleman to the ceiling.

Mr. Crookshank: Not at all.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the Government do not expect to find the £10 million within the ceiling. So the ceiling has gone—

Mr. Crookshank: I cannot let the right hon. Gentleman go on in this way about this. The argument about the ceiling and the introduction of the Bill, and all that, was decided before the Danckwerts award. Therefore, the objective this year was to keep below the £400 million ceiling. Then this award came along, which was on a far larger scale than anyone had anticipated, and the extent to which it will be falsified or it may be falsified we shall not know until after the end of the year. If it is we shall have to accept it. But that is no reason why our previous efforts to keep under the £400 million should be denigrated.

Mr. Bevan: All I said was that on the last occasion—and all the right hon. Gentleman has now said, but I put it quite colloquially—was that the ceiling is "bust." That is all I am saying now.


All the right hon. Gentleman has done is to put it in more circumlocutory language. The ceiling is gone. If there was any validity in that ceiling—and there never was—there is no justification for going on with this particular provision of the Bill in an effort to keep within the ceiling, which was the only argument of any relevance used by the right hon. Gentleman. That is gone.

Mr. Crookshank: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he will find that in a year's time, if he is still in office—and we hope that he will not be—he will find this coming back and hitting him in the face.

Mr. Crookshank: A ceiling cannot do that.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: We are now told that the right hon. Gentleman is to try hard to keep within the ceiling, knowing he will exceed it, but that because of the increased payment to general practitioners he is to collect payment for abdominal belts. That is a nice way to produce harmony inside the Health Service. Every time a person comes along for a truss, an abdominal belt or a special surgical boot or shoe, he will be made aware that the money is being collected from him to pay an additional £10 million a year to the general practitioners. That is a curious kind of conflict to create inside the Health Service. I can imagine no consideration likely to do more damage to the general climate inside the Service than a proposal of that sort.
It is all the worse because of the smallness of the sum involved. Hon. Members must keep in mind all the time that they are not really conferring power upon the Minister by this Clause only to impose charges on the four items mentioned, but on the whole range of appliances inside them; and even if the whole range is included, it amounts to only £4 million. It is to that extent that the Committee and the country should estimate the real emnity of the Tory Party to the free Health Service.
There is one consideration which I think the Committee and those hon. Members who support the Government ought to keep in mind. I was always

very anxious to provide for appliances for civilians inside the Health Service on the scale required because of the important bearing it had on the creation and maintenance of certain special skills. When there is a great war and we have large numbers of wounded people a great strain is placed upon a small number of specialists and a small range of industries producing these appliances. For some time wounded ex-Service men suffer considerably while they are waiting for these appliances to come along and for them to be improved.
It always seemed to me to be one of the most exciting aspects of the National Health Service that the fact that the injured civilian population would be able to call upon this special range of skills would keep them in existence, not only doing good in the meantime for the civilian population but maintaining this skill and this narrow range of industries so that, in the lamentable event of another war, we should immediately have these skills in existence for injured soldiers, and easily expand them to the scale required. It therefore seemed to me to be a valuable and important part of the national economy that the pool should be maintained. The pool could only be maintained if the civilian population, injured in the same way as people are injured in battle, could have access to these special skills.
I assure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that that is a very important part, and one of the most civilised parts, of what might be called war preparation. In the past, they were dispersed. Indeed, as those of us who have experience of industrial communities know, some of our people had to put up with the most shocking appliances—the trusses I have seen some of our people wear, the monstrous stuff advertised in magazines and newspapers which they were encouraged to buy. Members in all parts of the Committee ought to regard this as most uncivilised behaviour for a most unworthy motive and for financial considerations which are not really substantial at all.
There is a further point. The right hon. Gentleman really based his case upon gossip. It is fantastic that the House of Commons should be reduced to, the level of a 19th century bakehouse. Because certain people have got a bitter


attitude towards the Health Service, the right hon. Gentleman seeks the first available opportunity to harness it against the Service. We have had a lot of talk about wigs. The Tory papers have been making jokes about wigs for a long time. The right hon. Gentleman is the last person who ought to decry the value of wigs. No one can say that I have a vested interest in that matter. The provision of wigs in certain cases is a most important part of mental and physical recuperation.
If people have had serious operations the provision of wigs is a necessary part of the treatment. The same is true of some skin diseases and of some of the industrial diseases which result in the falling out of hair. It really is not good enough that serious Members of Parliament should allow their emotions and their decisions to be influenced by such stupid, silly, frivolous behaviour as that. Therefore, I seriously suggest to hon. Members opposite that they ought to have a look at this matter again.
The argument about borderline cases is silly. I have never heard such a thing. The right hon. Gentleman is losing his grip. What does he mean by a borderline case? It does not matter where one fixes the limit, there always will be a border. The Minister does not seem to think that some people fall one side of the border and other people fall the other side of the border. I have had letters from men and women complaining that they have been refused abdominal belts when they thought that they ought to have them and when the specialist in the hospital has said that, after careful consideration, he did not think that on medical grounds they ought to be provided. That happens normally.
What is this business about the borderline cases? The right hon. Gentleman ought to consider this matter again. I suggest to all hon. Members that to pursue this power much further will be understood by the country merely as an attempt to provide the widest range of excuses not for charges but for the destruction of the free Health Service.

Mrs. Braddock: I should like to ask the Minister whether he would postpone further consideration of this Clause until he has had the opportunity of making specific inquiries about the suggested abuses. I want to consider the four items

for which he suggests that there should be a charge. I cannot imagine anybody wanting a wig just for the sake of having one. I cannot understand a specialist issuing directions for a wig to be provided to someone who does not need it. I cannot imagine that there can possibly be any abuses in relation to surgical boots and shoes. Nobody who does not really require them would think of asking a specialist to provide them.
Surgical boots and shoes are not very comfortable to wear, and only certain people with physical deformities have to wear them. It has been proved that people who have had to wear such appliances have been unable to have them repaired because of the high cost. They have carried on for long periods wearing surgical boots and shoes which have done more harm than good because they have not been kept in satisfactory repair.
It is very serious to suggest a charge of 10s. for elastic hosiery. It is possible—and I think it will happen—that some firms will take advantage of the situation. They will manufacture and provide at a cheaper rate than 10s. an inferior article of elastic hosiery, and, even if it is only to save 2s. or 3s., people who medically need elastic hosiery will purchase the inferior quality goods, to make that saving. Perhaps the Minister does not understand in how very many cases 2s. or 3s. is of great importance to the people who require these articles.
I cannot understand the Minister making any suggestion at all that there may be abuses by people wearing surgical or abdominal belts. They are not comfortable things to wear, and people do not wear them for fun, but because they are medically necessary. I do not think that the application of charges on the four items will bring into the Health Service anything like the £250,000 that the Minister has suggested, because there will be all sorts of things done, some of which will be referred to when we discuss the question of dental charges.
All sorts of things will happen outside the Service altogether, and it will open up the possibility of inferior goods being offered to people who need these articles for medical reasons so that they might save the amount of money which the Government are proposing to charge for them.
I have had a very long experience of hospital services, both of the old methods


and the new methods under the National Health Service, and I am certain that the specialist service will very much resent the allegations of the Minister that there are abuses in the supply of surgical appliances of all sorts through the Health Service. I find from personal contact with one of the hospitals in Liverpool which supplies a very large number of surgical appliances, that the question of issuing surgical appliances is solely in the hands of the specialist service. The general practitioners have nothing to do with it, except that, perhaps, they recommend to the specialist service that these appliances may be necessary.
The specialist service alone is responsible for issuing the instructions about the supply of these appliances, and I know from practical experience that the most careful consideration and examination is given to all patients who go to hospital for the purpose of obtaining these surgical appliances. I can say, first, that there is no abuse at all, and, second, and most important, that the right type of surgical appliance of whatever kind is issued to the person who needs it.
Although the Minister has suggested that it is only in the case of these four items, the fact that a charge of £3 for surgical boots and shoes is to be made will have a very bad effect upon those who are compelled from physical deformity to wear these appliances. It is a very paltry charge, because it concerns wholly the people who are either born with physical disabilities or have a street accident or an accident in industry, and who require to use and wear surgical boots and shoes.
Then there is the question of the cost of repair. Where surgical boots or shoes are worn, it is very often the case that one foot uses the article much heavier than the other, and that, therefore, it constantly needs repair. In this case as well, the wearers cannot take the boot or shoe to an ordinary shoemaker for repair. The person concerned must get a certificate from the hospital or specialist declaring that the appliance requires repair, so that there can be no question of abuse there.
5.15 p.m.
I ask the Minister to say immediately, to save further discussion on the matter, that he will withdraw this Clause, at any rate, temporarily, until either tomorrow or after the Easter Recess, so that he

may ask for evidence from the specialist staff of hospitals throughout the country as to the possibility of any abuses taking place in regard to these four items in respect of which he has suggested that a charge should be made.
I suggest that he should make his inquiries through the proper channel, and that he should not take notice of comments made on public platforms by members of his own party or of other parties which are against the Health Service. I ask him not to listen to that sort of allegation, but make inquiries himself. He has his own medical superintendents, medical officers and regional officers, who can give him all details concerning the use of the surgical appliances.
I am prepared to say to him now that, if he makes these inquiries, he will not be able to prove one instance throughout the whole country in which a specialist responsible for the examination of the patient and the issuing of these appliances will have been found to have abused in any way the issue of these articles, which are so desperately needed by people who suffer from these disabilities.
It has been one of the most important features of the Health Service that so many people who did without the things which they urgently needed in the old days, when private enterprise used to take advantage of the disabilities of people and charge them outrageous prices for surgical appliances—people who needed them on medical grounds—have been able to get them, when, formerly, they did without because they had not got the money to pay for them.
I am certain that if the Minister looks at this matter again—and I do hope he will—he will realise that he will not get the amount which he suggests, but that people who need these appliances will go for long periods without re-examination if anything goes wrong with their appliances, in order to obviate the possibility of being charged, either for repairs or renewal.
If the Minister obtains this information and takes time to look at it, I am sure he will find that the statements I am making are correct. I therefore hope that the Government will be prepared to withdraw these four items and allow the Service to return to the useful purpose of supplying these appliances to the people who need them on medical grounds.

Mr. Edward Evans: We listened to the Minister with a great deal of interest when he categorically set forth those appliances for which he proposes to charge the public. What he said is all very well, as far as it goes, and it may be the Minister's intention to adhere to what he has told us this afternoon.
I would remind the Committee, however, that the Minister still retains within the Bill the power to impose these regulations whenever he thinks fit to come to the House to do so, and that what he has said in no way binds his successor. We, on this side of the Committee, have no idea how long the right hon. Gentleman will retain his present office, and we have only his word for what he has told us. Judging by the reactions of the public to the promises made by the other side of the Committee, I do not think that any of us can put any faith in what the Minister has told us today.
I make no apology for doing a little special pleading on behalf of two categories of people who, on the Minister's statement today, will not be charged for the appliances which they desire. They are the people who suffer from disabilities of sight and hearing.
I remember that when my right hon. Friend was conducting the original National Health Service Act through the Committee stage he told us what he proposed to do for the ophthalmic services. He said that one of the appliances he did not intend to give was an eyeglass. I intervened and asked that if he was not proposing to give an eyeglass, would he give a glass eye. He said that was a very pertinent question and that he would consider the point. It turned out, in the event, that that was one of the services rendered under the Service.
Even if the Minister is not prepared to withdraw the whole of the charges that he proposes, I would ask him to insert my Amendment, in page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert, "other than artificial eyes." No one wears an artificial eye because he wants to. It means that the person is either wholly blind or half blind, that there has been an excision of the eyeball and that the artificial eye is put there to help him in two ways. It has, first of all, a hygienic value which in many cases is supremely important and will, if the other eye is healthy, lead to

its preservation. Then, of course, there is the aesthetic or psychological effect, and that no one can over-estimate. It gives a younger person who has lost an eye, particularly if that person is a young woman, a feeling of assurance.
When I was associated with the National Institute for the Blind during the war, we were able to give such people, through the provision of artificial eyes, a tremendous degree of assurance and courage to face the disability of blindness caused by air raids. They felt that, after all, they were not so disfigured as they thought they were. It gives such a person great assurance to know that he does not look so very different from the people around him.
The cost of an artificial eye is almost negligible. As far as I have been able to find out they are generally issued through the Ministry of Pensions. Between 7,000 and 8,000 artificial eyes are issued each year. Most of them today are plastic eyes. In the old days, when I first went in for this work, we used to call them glass eyes, as indeed they were. But the development of the plastic industry has inevitably put the emphasis on plastic eyes, which cost £2 as against £3 for the glass eye.
The total cost of issuing artificial eyes is about £16,000 a year, which is obviously a negligible amount. It is also a service which is tremendously important for children. One has only to go to the partially sighted and blind schools of the country to find out how highly valued these appliances are in connection with young people.
The other category of people about whom I wish to say a few words are the hard of hearing or the partially deaf. When my right hon. Friend was introducing the original Act, those of us who spend a great deal of our time with the deaf were very anxious to know what he was going to do for them. He gave them hearing aids which broke the terrific commercial ramp that had been going on in the manufacture of these appliances. I want to make it quite clear that I yield to no one in my admiration of those firms who in the past did extraordinarily good research work in this direction and maintained a high ethical standard in their salesmanship. But we know that there were many firms which fell far below such standards.
It was a great comfort to the deaf to know that the Minister had decided to give them an aid which would bring untold benefits and from which they would derive a sense of fulfilment such as no other service could render them. I happen to be the Vice-Chairman of the National Institute for the Deaf. For many years we conducted inquiries and found that there was a tremendous demand for aural aids. Despite the help given in the past through the voluntary hospitals to people in need of hearing aids, about 50 per cent. of such persons were unable to avail themselves of these instruments.
Gradually we broke down the resistance to wearing a hearing aid. At one time anyone who wore such an aid was almost a museum piece. I was at a meeting of deaf people last Saturday, sponsored by the British Association for the Hard of Hearing. It was a very representative meeting and I think that by now the Minister will have received a communication from its sponsors.
Before we knew precisely what the Minister's intentions were regarding the charge for appliances, it was rumoured that very considerable charges indeed were to be made for hearing aids. The immediate reaction of that body was most emphatic. It represents very wide ranges in the social structure. Some of the people represented by it have very considerable means, but the great mass of the people represented are ordinary working class men and women. The feeling was that in no circumstances should the advantages of a free issue of the Medresco hearing aid be lightly thrown away.
I want the Minister to safeguard the position. He has given us a verbal assurance that it is not his intention or that of the present Government to impose a charge for these aids. But we want these assurances put into the Bill, and I ask him to agree to the insertion of a specific proviso before we proceed to the next stage that both artificial eyes and hearing aids are to be excluded from the regulations.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) expressed alarm that the scope of the charges under this Clause should have been left to be defined by regulation. Accordingly, he devoted most of his speech to dealing with

appliances upon which it is known that the Government do not intend to impose a charge. His argument would have had a great deal more force were it not for the fact that under the Act of 1949, which relates to charges for prescriptions and other articles obtainable through the pharmaceutical services exactly the same form of legislation had been adopted.
Section 16 of that Act says:
Regulations may provide for the making and recovery, in such manner as may be prescribed, of such charges, in respect of such pharmaceutical services, as may be prescribed. …
The whole matter was left as a blank cheque for the Minister to fill in by regulation. So, whatever objection may be urged against the procedure, it cannot be urged from that side of the Committee. Why, there was even no suggestion in the terms of that Act that the charge would be 1s. per subscription and not 2s. or 3s. There was no indication whether or not all the appliances available under the pharmaceutical services would be included. The whole matter was left absolutely vague.
5.30 p.m.
It so happens that under the terms of that Section as it was drawn, charges could have been imposed upon elastic hosiery—one of the items here concerned—for those are amongst the appliances provided under the pharmaceutical services. Therefore, the Committee in dealing with this Clause is under an obligation not to treat with the whole range of appliances but to apply its mind strictly to the four appliances specified by the Minister—

Mr. Edward Evans: On a point of order. I remind you, Mr. Colegate, that when your predecessor was in the Chair he intimated to the Committee that although the debate was to be taken on the first Amendment to leave out the words "or appliances," he was proposing to allow those of us who have Amendments on the Order Paper to wander over the general field.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arthur Colegate): It might be for the convenience of the Committee, since some hon. Members have come in since the Chairman made his announcement, if I said that the Chair decided to take the first Amendment and after that, with the agreement of the Committee, it was


decided to allow the next Amendments down to but not including the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) on page 370 to be taken together, and a general debate allowed.

Mr. T. Brown: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) for giving way and, judging from his previous speeches, I do not think he has any desire to mislead the Committee, but I think it will be as well if he said that the regulation from which he has just read refers only to pharmaceutical prescriptions.

Mr. Powell: It refers to "pharmaceutical services" and that covers not only drugs but also a limited range of appliances. That comes in Section 38 (1) of the 1949 Act, and it happens to include elastic hosiery.

Mr. Brown: I think the hon. Member will agree that this Clause mentions medicines and appliances, and the point we are trying to make is that we are separating the pharmaceutical prescriptions from the appliances which are so essential.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Powell: I am far from wishing to argue that the terms of the Section of the 1949 Act were the same as the present Clause. I was trying to argue that the House of Commons at that time did not object to the procedure that these charges should be allowed to be defined by regulation; nor was I at all criticising the Chair by suggesting that Amendments which it is perfectly in order to discuss happen to be absurd Amendments which my right hon. Friend should not accept.

Dr. Stross: The hon. Member has made some point of the question of whether the 1949 Act was drafted with reference to this matter, but has he not looked also at the 1951 Act, where we were dealing specifically with appliances, optical and dental? He will find that there exactly the opposite is the case to the one he has now made out. Does the hon. Member want the Committee to believe there is only one year—1949—in the calendar?

Mr. Powell: I am obliged, but I suggest to the Committee that there is a

much closer analogy with the 1949 Act, which laid open the possibility of charges on a wide range of articles than with the 1951 Act, which imposed charges on two very limited specific types of appliances.
At any rate, I shall confine my observations to the narrow and relevant question of the four appliances upon which my right hon. Friend intends to impose charges—intends at present to impose charges—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—because regulations can be altered from time to time and there is every reason why it should be possible for the Minister by regulation to reduce or eliminate these charges altogether when that becomes possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or increase them."]
We have heard the remarkable argument in the course of the debate that because we are now aware that £10 million more will have to be spent upon the National Health Service in fulfilment of a public debt of honour, therefore there is no need at all for the economies and the charges which this Bill makes. We have been told that because £10 million more have to be found anyhow, there is no longer any need to restrain the tendency of the total cost of the Service to rise. That is an entirely fallacious argument to use.

Mr. Messer: Nobody said it.

Mr. Powell: I am within the recollection of the Committee. It has been suggested that because in this financial year more than £400 million have to be spent, it does not very much matter how much more.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is suggesting dishonesty now. I was arguing against the point made by the Minister of Health, that after the rewards to which the hon. Member referred had been made the reason for these charges remained the same reason as was in his mind when the Bill was introduced—that it was to try to keep the expenditure within the ceiling. The ceiling was the argument for the Bill.

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman in his speech pointed out quite rightly that the sum of £400 million in itself is a purely arbitrary figure which has no special logical cogency. We know now that the total cost of the Health


Service in the coming year will be £400 million plus "X." But that, as I said before, increases the necessity for restraining the rise throughout the Service generally, and ensuring that where a rise does take place as in the hospital service, it is taking place in the parts of the Service which are most essential. Therefore, the need for saving here £250,000 which will be applied elsewhere is not only not less than it was before but is greater.
I will also deal with the fallacy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) that whenever a person has to pay a charge under this Clause he is paying for the doctors. It might just as well be said he is paying for the nurses or for the beds in hospitals or for any other cost. The whole thing is a monstrous fallacy and paradox. If we have to find £10 million more, it is all the more necessary that we should see that the rises in the cost of the service elsewhere come in the most essential and unavoidable parts of the Service. That is exactly what my right hon. Friend is doing.
Because I think it was a very genuine point, I want to deal with the argument of the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). She expressed the fear that the imposition of charges upon appliances would encourage patients to go and obtain quack appliances elsewhere. If that case could be made out it would be a very serious one.
I suggest that as these charges are planned and upon the information given to the House by my right hon. Friend on the Second Reading of the Bill, there is no real danger of that taking place. The charges which are going to be imposed do not exceed half the cost of the appliances alone, without any consideration of the cost of fitting and the other surrounding expenses. It is therefore in the highest degree unlikely that a quack appliance could be produced at less than the patient will have to pay under these regulations. I believe that that is an anxiety which the hon. Lady could leave out of her mind.

Mr. W. Griffiths: On this question of the quack appliances, is not the hon. Member aware of the declarations already made by

the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary about the effects that have occurred in the ophthalmic service arising from the charges in the Bill last year?

Brigadier Christopher Peto: Your Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: Our Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary has already expressed concern about the enormous growth in sales of spectacles in the chain stores, directly arising from the charge.

Mr. Powell: I should hope that it would be generally agreed that there was very little prospect of providing appliances which any member of the public would regard as in any way comparable with those obtainable through the National Health Service at sums much less than half the cost to the Minister.

Mr. T. Brown: I start from the point on the Amendment which we are now discussing by saying that I am one of those people who believe that so long as there are wars we shall have sick and wounded men and so long as we have industry we shall have broken and bruised men, and it is our job, in this assembly, to pool our ideas to give all the help we can to those who have the misfortune to meet with accidents necessitating the use of appliances.
Last Thursday, during the Committee stage, we had two very important statements from back benchers opposite, to which I attach great importance. One came from the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), who appealed to the Committee to approach this question from a humanitarian standpoint and the other came from the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead), whose work on behalf of the National Health Service has always had my admiration. He has played a very important part in it, and he uttered last week a statement which impressed me, though he hardly went far enough.
He gave expression to these words:
… we are in danger, in the Health Service in particular of forgetting one very fundamental thing. That is, that no State can take away from an individual the responsibility of his own health.
I agree with that. He went on:
There is a very grave danger that in our desire to spread our social services in every quarter we will make that fundamental mistake. I think most of us take it for granted


that the State is greatly concerned with the health of the individual and must of necessity be so; but the State may make a great mistake if it so emphasises the freedom and extent of its services as to take away from the individual man that sense of responsibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 1979.]
5.45 p.m.
We all agree that there is an individual responsibility resting upon each citizen to look after his own health; but having admitted that, at the same time a responsibility rests upon the State to care for the citizen who is overtaken by misfortune. Therefore, we are now applying our minds to the problem of securing something for those unfortunate people who have had the misfortune, in their industrial life, to be overtaken by accidents which eventually mean that they have to use appliances of so many kinds.
I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman, charged with responsibility as he is, should bring this Measure before the House, because I recall that, when I was a miner, working in the pit, he occupied the responsible position of Secretary for Mines and he must know—he cannot put forward any claim that he is unaware of these things—that the incidence of accidents in the mine were such that he himself from time to time had to take the necessary steps to minimise those accidents.
Therefore, he must know that if he does not agree to some of the Amendments now on the Order Paper, he will rouse in the miners' fraternity the anger of a body of men who are playing their part in a way that is second to none. I issue this warning: there are many, many little irritants which are now showing themselves, and we in the mining fraternity are anxious to erase those irritants and to try to maintain the morale and the sense of responsibility of our men.
We want to keep that at the highest possible level in order that the productivity of the mining industry will be good and will improve. I know something of the psychology of the miner. There is nothing which disturbs him more than to think that someone, somewhere, in some way is trying to put a "fast one" across him.
I have every sympathy with those who have, unfortunately, been injured in the pit. I have spent a great deal of my time

on the industrial side of the industry, and the argument which the right hon. Gentleman is advancing about abuses does not cut any ice at all. I have never, in my long experience known men to make application for an abdominal belt or a truss, or anything else they required to support them, for the sake of making an application. It was always my greatest difficulty to persuade them to wear them. In some cases they were an encumbrance to men when they were working in the pit.
But the right hon. Gentleman comes forward with an argument that he is doing this because of certain abuses that have been discovered. Discovered from whom? Who is giving him the information? From what source does it come? I venture to suggest that if he had a close investigation he would find that those people who are giving him that information do not know the full facts in the minefields. The argument that he is putting forward to support these charges does not hold water.
Another point which he put forward was that such a small amount was involved. If the amount that he is going to recover from the policy which he is now advocating is so small, why pursue it at all? I suggest that he will be well advised if he takes this Clause back and between now and the Report stage cuts out the word "appliances." That is a great irritant and, if I may say so—and I weigh very carefully the words I am using—if he does not it will have a great deterrent effect upon those men working in the mining industry.
We have already conclusive evidence that they are very much opposed to the cuts that have been applied by the Government, and they are very much opposed to the inroads made on the National Health Service. Therefore, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to listen to the appeals of hon. Members on this side of the Committee; men who have had experience and know something of what it means to the men in the pit who are unfortunately overtaken by an accident.
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever visualised, when he is talking about making a charge for appliances, what it means to these men who have to buy not only one appliance or even two appliances, but three. Many of the men working in the industry, who


have had the misfortune to suffer hernia, have to wear three trusses—not three at once but, because they cannot get admission to hospital to undergo the necessary operation, they have to wear a truss at the pit and another when they get home and they have one being repaired.
Is the right hon. Gentleman, and are the party opposite, really suggesting that there should be a charge for that type of appliance? They never made a greater mistake in their lives if they think the men in the mining industry will sit down under that imposition. I am very anxious to avoid any upheaval in the industry—and I am not using this as a threat: but they will not keep our men down if the men see that some of their injured comrades are being unfairly treated by the Government.
I can speak from personal experience here. It may be that I am the only hon. Member—I hope I am—who has to wear an abdominal belt as the result of an accident in the pit. When that abdominal belt has to be renewed, I am in the position of being able to pay for it, and therefore I do not trouble anybody; but that is no reason on earth why I should sit idly by and not defend those men who cannot afford to buy their abdominal belts.
After all, we must remember that when they want these belts or trusses, their income is at the lowest possible level because they are in receipt of compensation. The belt which I wear at present cost £4 18s. 6d. How far do hon. Members think that men will be satisfied with the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and the party opposite when he finds that, out of his 45s. a week compensation, he has to pay £4 18s. 6d. for a belt which he requires—and he requires it not because he neglected his body but because he had the misfortune to sustain an accident in the pit when producing the coal which is so necessary for the nation's prosperity.
I put that aspect to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will respond to the appeals which have been made from these benches. We do not want to make party capital out of this. Please do not misunderstand us. The matter is of such serious dimensions that a man would be wrong if he tried to make party capital out of an injured workman. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will face these facts.
There is another aspect I want to put before the Minister. Since the passing of the Act which gave so many of these benefits to our people, it has been my lot to come into contact with many men who have had the misfortune to suffer from accidents, and they have paid a great tribute to the Act of Parliament, to the great assistance they have received and to the great benefits which were introduced. It will be a sorry day if the right hon. Gentleman pursues the pathway upon which he has entered and, by so doing, upsets these men.
A few years ago, there was a time in the mining industry when we had to take collections in order to buy appliances for our injured comrades. When we discovered that, we advocated the setting up of benevolent societies. Those did not exist for many years. We set up the permanent relief society, from which society we used to derive the benefits which came to us in the 1948 Act. Surely we are not going back to those bad days.
Here the State has an opportunity of recognising the work of those men who are engaged in industry. The State has an opportunity of saying to the nation at large and to the men in industry, "You are playing your part, you have done your whack; and because you are playing your part and because you have done your whack, we are prepared to come to your assistance if you sustain an accident." Will the right hon. Gentleman take this Clause back and consider it between now and Report stage, and bring forward something more reasonable, something which contains a little more justice and a little more honesty and a desire to help the unfortunate men who have been injured in industry?

Miss Herbison: I think the Minister must be well aware by now that there is not one hon. Member on this side of the House who was pleased with his intervention, or who agrees with what he said. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), made a simple plea that we should be discussing today only those four types of appliance upon which the Minister says he will impose a charge. We are not at all sure of that.
We find that these charges are expected to bring in £250,000. I think that hon. Members on this side of the House have already shown the drastic effects which


these charges will have and the very little saving there will be to the Treasury, and we are afraid that if the word "appliances" is left in the Bill, then at some time, and probably sooner rather than later, there will be an extension from the four appliances which the Minister mentioned to others. That is why I am glad that my hon. Friends have dealt, in particular, with their own Amendments.
I want to discuss one of the appliances upon which a charge is to be made—abdominal supports. Quite a number of hon. Members have already shown to the Minister the effect which this charge will have on industrial workers. I represent a big mining area, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) about how grateful these men were for the benefits which they receive under the National Health Service Act. These benefits made it possible for many miners, for the first time in many years, to get out amongst their friends in the streets and even to go occasionally to a football match.
When these charges were proposed, and the announcement about them appeared in the Press, I received a letter from a miner informing me that he needed not just one surgical appliance in order to get outside the door, but five surgical appliances of different kinds—and he had to wear them all at the same time. That man broke his back in the pit, and until 1948 he was unable to leave his home. But because of the help of these surgical appliances and because of the motor-propelled chair which he received under our Act, life became a much brighter and happier thing for him, in spite of his broken back.
It seems to me one of the meanest things which the present Government have done to tell these men that we intend to charge them £1. Remember, most of the men who need these abdominal supports are men who are not in work. Some of them are men who hope, when they get them, that they will be able to go to work. Many of them are men who will never be able to work again.
6.0 p.m.
If we consider the women who require abdominal supports, we find that many of them are mothers. Many of them are

mothers who, before 1948, were not able to get surgical belts—or abdominal supports, as the Minister calls them. Many of them today are suffering because for years before 1948 they just could not afford these abdominal supports. These mothers now are not only going to pay charges for abdominal supports but they are also going to have to pay the 1s. subscription for medicines.
I myself worked in one of the poorest districts of Glasgow. There I found that, though their husbands were covered as panel patients, the mothers and their children were not. The mother, time and time again, put off going to the doctor, or calling in the doctor, first, because she could not pay his charge, and second, because she could not afford to pay for the medicine he would prescribe. Here, in this miserable Bill, the mother is going to have to pay both for medicines and for abdominal belts.
The truth of the matter is that many of the women will be back in the position they were in before 1948: they just will not go to the doctor in the first instance; or, if a doctor is called in, and suggests that a woman should go for specialist attention, she will just say, "No. Possibly it would mean an abdominal belt, and, in my present circumstances, I just cannot afford £1."
That is a shocking thing to happen in this country in 1952, and it is a shocking thing to think that it will happen because the present Government wish to save this miserable £250,000 out of this Service. I would make a particular plea to the hon. Lady that at least these appliances, these abdominal belts, as they affect the industrial workers and as they affect the mothers, shall be taken out of the range of charges.
The Minister gave us no satisfaction at all. Indeed, I felt he was most uncomfortable at the repeated interventions from this side. What were his words? He said he had been "informed" and that he had been "advised" that there had been abuses in this particular matter of abdominal belts. He would not tell us, however, who had informed or who had advised him.
He went on to say that pressure had been brought to bear on the specialists to give abdominal belts to women. What an indictment that is of our specialists in our hospital services. I feel that it


is such an indictment and such an insult that the hon. Lady or her right hon. Friend should forthwith withdraw that indictment and insult against our specialists.
I come next to this charge for surgical boots. We are told that the patient, man or woman, will be able to get surgical boots for a payment of £3. Some people say that that is not much more than a man or woman pays for his or her ordinary boots or shoes. However, there are many men and women today who are buying the cheapest boots or the cheapest shoes, and they are something under £3. Another point that the Minister ought to keep in mind is that the man or woman who needs surgical boots wears them out much more quickly than a man or woman wears out ordinary boots, and for that reason again the Minister ought to have second thoughts on this matter.
On the question of charges for elastic hosiery, I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) made the point that she did make. There are many women who need these surgical stockings or elastic stockings. They need them for different reasons. It would be a great tragedy indeed if pregnant mothers in this country—and many women need these stockings at that time if not at another time—found it impossible to get them. A charge of 5s. or 10s. is a very heavy one for the mothers, but it is a miserably small amount of money to the Minister.
However we look at these charges, whether at their effect on our people—the tragic effect in some circumstances—or from the point of view of the amount of money that the Treasury is going to get—that miserably small amount of money—it makes one wonder why the Minister ever thought of these charges. I would say that these charges are hitting below the belt. I would say to hon. Members who are, perhaps, not so interested in boxing but who have attended public schools—I would say to them in their own language—that they must really, in their hearts, believe that these charges are just not cricket.

Mr. W. E. Padley: After the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who

has wide experience of the mining industry, and his comprehension of the human tragedy involved, the Minister should forthwith withdraw this Bill. At the very least he should take the path of moral rectitude by making it clear in the Bill that most of the appliances that injured miners need are totally excluded from the proposed payments. We are told that only four items are to be the subject of charges, and that the charges for those four will yield a sum of some £250,000. I should be interested if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us, when she replies to the debate, what amount will be yielded by each of the four categories, surgical boots, abdominal belts, elastic hosiery, and wigs. I am sure that other hon. Members will also be interested to know how the total amount is divided.
We have had from the other side of the Committee a good deal of abstract argument. I was pleased that a recent speaker on this side of the Committee sought to clothe the abstract argument with the flesh and blood of reality and human tragedy which lie behind these charges for appliances. I shall not deal with the problem of the injured miners, because my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) and for Ince have already dealt with that point, but in my constituency I have a man who needs surgical boots. I had to intervene with the Minister to get a satisfactory surgical boot made for him, so the Minister will be aware of the case.
This man also suffers from recurrent diseases, asthma and eczema. This Bill imposes charges for the prescription of drugs and medicines to relieve his eczema and asthma. From the age of five, this constituent of mine has had infantile paralysis in his right leg up to the hip. He needs surgical boots. He is a man of courage, character and some intellectual stature. He works at the Remploy Factory for seriously disabled men in my constituency. His total earnings in a full week are about £5 1s., out of which he has to meet some part of the 7s. 8d. for fares from Maesteg to Bridgend. This man, suffering, as I say, from asthma and eczema, being subject to charges for prescriptions, is now to be called upon to pay £3 for his surgical boots.
Incidentally, I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what


will happen in cases similar to the one I have in mind where surgical boots are made and fitted, but prove to be unsuitable so that further examinations and fittings are necessary and new surgical boots are required. Will the patient be required to pay £3 on each occasion, or will one payment suffice?
In addition, the man to whom I refer will be required to pay between 8s. and 13s. 6d. every time the boots need repair, and since, as a rule, surgical boots wear out more quickly than those which most of us use, a very real hardship will be imposed upon this man. We are entitled to know why this man and others like him are being singled out for this attack.
We have heard from hon. Members opposite that, in general, these charges are necessitated because there is abuse, but so far no hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite has had the brass-faced impudence to claim that men and women who wear surgical boots are abusing the Health Service. What, then, is the reason for the imposition of these grave hardships on my constituent and other unfortunate men and women like him? The only case that has been put from the other side was contained in the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland when he wound up the Second Reading debate, and I propose briefly to refer to the point he made on that occasion. He said:
The first of these is the argument that these charges have no relation whatsoever to our general economic difficulty, and, in particular, to our balance of payments. Every hon. Member must know that our basic problem today is to stimulate our export trade, and that they must appreciate that any reduction of home demand is bound to be a factor operating in the right direction. That is no less true if the resources set free by any particular reduction in demand do not themselves contribute directly to our exports. We have to look at the economy of the nation as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 1022.]
That was the defence put up for these charges, so to solve the economic crisis my constituent, with eczema and asthma, pays the "bob" prescription when he goes to the doctor for drugs and medicines, he than pays £3 for his surgical boots necessitated by infantile paralysis, and finally, he pays his 8s. to 13s. 6d. every time the surgical boots need repair.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I know something about cases of this kind. If this man is

also getting the treatment which up-to-date specialists recommend, he should also be having short-wave therapy. In that case, will he have to pay for that?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Padley: I will not follow my hon. Friend on that line of argument.
What I say is that, if Britain has a serious overseas trade crisis, and if the best argument that can be advanced for these charges is the one advanced by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, then we are placing the burden of Britain's economic difficulties on the least fortunate—the crippled as well as the sick and the infirm. I appeal to the Minister and to his Parliamentary Secretary: Is there no sense of human decency, no sense of moral values left, so that at a time when those fortunate enough to have incomes of £2,000 a year and above are being made a present of £50 a year or more by the Budget in tax remissions, the crippled must be called upon to bear the burden of our overseas trade crisis? I am confident that if there are consciences to be stirred on the other side of the Committee, then not only will this Amendment be accepted but the Bill will be withdrawn.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: We on this side of the Committee would want to argue the points put by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), when he argued that there was no danger of there being any cheap quack substitutes used for appliances that in the past have been obtained free under the Service.
I and others on these benches have had some experience in the Ministry of Pensions of the type of quack appliances, of one sort and another, that were being used until patients were able to get the use of the National Health Service and obtain free appliances of all kinds of real value and real quality. I know the shock of horror that it was to many of us, and to many of the officials concerned with this matter, when we had coming in to the centres of the Ministry of Pensions the National Health Service cases with their wretched bits of wood and peg legs, and all their other bits of appliances of shockingly bad character, for which no doubt comparatively small payments had been made, but which were utterly useless to meet their needs. Yet that was all either they could afford or that their


societies were able to provide for them in the past.
I am sorry that the hon. Member is not here at the moment, because I must say it is utterly untrue to suggest that it is impossible for quack substitutes to be provided at half or less the cost. They no doubt will be. They will be of little value, but they will be all these people will be able to get.
This is a shockingly retrograde step to take, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will at any rate say that she will think about this matter again. After all, what is involved in financial terms? We are told that all the Ministry want to save is this sum of £250,000. If we are to believe what we are told and this is the total sum they have in mind, is it really necessary to impose all the difficulties and restraints on both the individuals concerned and the staffs who will be concerned with the collection of these wretched sums of money, in the hospitals and elsewhere? I have a cutting from the "Municipal Journal" which discusses these charges for appliances, and one thing it says is this:
The costs of collection are likely to be fairly high unless the Ministry forces almoners to relinquish some of their socio-medical work. If each of the 377 management committees appoints one clerk, the collection costs could easily be about £100,000 per annum.
Are not we reaching the height of absurdity if there is any danger of any sum remotely comparable to that figure of £100,000 being expended to save the Government some £250,000? Is not that a ridiculous position for the Committee to be put into?
We have all been very glad that the almoners in the hospitals during the last few years have been taken away from some of the wretched financial collection work which they had to do in the past and have been able to undertake the very valuable social work they are doing today. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say whether the almoners are now to be forced back into their monetary collections, or are they going to appoint new staff to do this work. This is an important point to which we are entitled to some reply from the hon. Lady.
Assuming, as was said earlier, that it has been left to the hospital management committees to decide in what way they

are going to carry out this work, surely it is not satisfactory for the Committee to be told that no decision has yet been made as to how the work is to be done. How are we to decide whether this is a reasonable proposal, unless we know something about the way in which the collection work is to be carried out, and what waste is to be imposed on the service to enable these comparatively trifling sums to be collected?
I suggest that is a matter which the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend ought to consider again. They are imposing upon themselves wholly unnecessary trouble. If they want to ensure that these matters are considered more speedily by this Committee, then here is their opportunity to give some indication to the Committee that they are prepared at least to reconsider some of the matters we have been putting before them this afternoon and during previous consideration of the Bill.
I believe it to be true that so far we have not had one single concession or suggestion of any concession. Here is an opportunity, when the hon. Lady comes to reply, to say that she is prepared to take this back and give it further consideration before the Report stage. That, I am sure, would be welcomed by both sides of the Committee.
Do not let us be taken in by the suggestion made by the Minister that the Government are going to impose charges on only some four items. If they believe that, why do not they make that provision in the Bill? At least, we were careful in the Bill we introduced last year to see that the charges were made to alight on specific points. Now, all that we are asking is that they should do the same; they should at least ensure that these vital appliances for which they say they have no intention of charging at the present time are specifically excluded from the Bill. Surely, we are not asking for anything unreasonable to be conceded. If they do not concede this, it makes it perfectly clear that they have every intention of imposing charges in the rest of the field in a matter of a few months, if not almost immediately.

Mr. Crookshank: indicated dissent.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. That apparently means that he has no intention of imposing


further charges. All we say is: put that in the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman would agree to intervene to say he will do that now, it might speed up the proceedings. I am very willing to give way to him if he is prepared to say so now. Apparently he is not willing.
We can take it on this side of the Committee therefore that although the Government are trying to get an easier passage of the Bill by saying they are imposing charges on only four items, they have every intention of imposing charges on the whole field before very long. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then, let the Minister make provision in the Bill. There is nothing to prevent him from doing so and following our good example last year by making specific provisions for just those items he intends to charge for. Otherwise, it is perfectly clear that concern on this side of the Committee will be greatly increased and also concern in the country.

Dr. Broughton: When I spoke on a previous Amendment, I said that the Government were faced with a real and serious problem—the rising cost of the drugs and medicine being poured down British throats—and that the Government had selected the wrong and a very cruel remedy of stemming that rising cost. Now, when we come to consider these charges for appliances, we find the Government ruthlessly inflicting hurt to solve a problem which exists only in the fantasy of their own minds.
The Minister stated during the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill that
when the Government were seeing whether any savings could be made in the Health Service the considerations they had constantly in mind were:"—
and I would like the Committee to note that this is the first one—
are there any obvious abuses to be rectified?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 845.]
Every hon. Member wants to stop abuses in the Health Service. Every hon. and right hon. Member knows that it is his duty to prevent the misuse of public money. But there has been no abuse in the issue of surgical appliances.
Does the Minister of Health claim that surgical boots have been given to people other than cripples? Does he claim that artificial limbs have been provided for people who are fully four-limbed? It

was possible from the very start of the Health Service for the Government to make provisions to prevent the abuse of appliances by insisting that no patient should be issued with an appliance until that patient had received a recommendation from his or her own doctor and had been seen and undergone a second and more thorough examination by a specialist; and only after that second examination by a specialist and on the orders of a specialist should a surgical appliance be obtained.
I know that the Minister thinks that there has been abuse in the issue of abdominal supports because he stated on the Second Reading of the Bill, when speaking of these charges:
The second group is surgical abdominal supports, and we propose a charge of £1 each on them. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) probably knows that there have been a good many cases of alleged abuse reported, of prescribing what was not much more than a reinforced corset."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 850.]
I think that the Minister of Health must have realised that the allegation was groundless, otherwise he would not have held out the hand of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan).
I should like to tell the Committee of a case which came my way recently and which concerned a constituent of mine. This was a woman who, I admit at the outset, would have had her figure improved if she had been provided with surgical corsets. She was of the opinion that she should wear surgical corsets and she persuaded her doctor to give her a note of recommendation to take to a hospital where she could be examined by a specialist. The specialist examined her and, finding no surgical abnormality, refused to provide her with the abdominal support.
6.30 p.m.
The woman went back to her own doctor, complained of the treatment that she had received at the hospital, and prevailed upon him to give her a letter to allow her to go to another hospital and be seen by a different specialist. The second specialist examined her and again found no surgical abnormality and refused to order the abdominal support for her. It was after that that she came to see me. She told me what she thought about


specialists at hospitals. I had, of course, to tell her that I could not help her.
I have told the Committee of that case to give an illustration of the conscientious manner in which specialists are carrying out their work. The statement which the Minister of Health made during the Second Reading debate casts a very serious reflection upon the integrity of our specialists.
The Minister has given us the list of the appliances upon which these charges will fall. He mentioned surgical boots. This is an attack on cripples. He also mentioned the charges which will have to be paid for the repair of surgical boots, and he specifically mentioned the charges that will have to be paid by crippled women. When we look at the next charge, which is on surgical abdominal supports, and the following one, elastic hosiery, we find that they will fall mostly upon women who have borne children, who, of all people, ought to be honoured, respected and protected. The fourth item was wigs. This is a blow delivered at people who suffer the embarrassment of having a completely hairless head.
So we find that these iniquitous charges are being levied largely on women and cripples. I appeal to the Minister of Health, in the name of chivalry, to withdraw these charges and accept our Amendment. We have been told that the estimated saving on the four selected items will be £250,000. That is, the Government are hoping that £250,000 will be saved within the annual expenditure of £400 million on the National Health Service. To save 1/1,600th part of the National Health Service expenditure, mothers and cripples have been selected to take the kicks when a Tory Government ruthlessly imposes its wrecking measures upon the Service.
That is not all. I have briefly mentioned only the specific items which are already on the lists for a charge. What of the other possibilities? The Minister has said that he does not propose to touch artificial legs or arms and that hearing aids are to be exempted. I trust the right hon. Gentleman to keep his word, but we know perfectly well that he is not going to be the Minister of Health very much longer, and, as the Bill now stands, any successor of his could merely by means of regulations, impose a charge on any appliance at any time.
The Government are seeking powers which the Opposition can only regard as extremely dangerous. Only five months ago the Chairman of the Conservative Party promised that food subsidies would not be cut and yet, in the Tory Budget, subsidies are slashed by £160 million. So voluminous is the catalogue of shattered Tory promises that the Opposition cannot accept their word. The Bill must be altered and it will be altered. It will be altered either now or in the very near future, when we have the next Labour Government.

Mr. Crookshank: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I answered one or two of the points that have been raised and tried to clear up some misapprehensions. I must remind the Committee that what we are discussing—however far we may wander from it—is whether or not appliances should come within the scope of the Bill and whether the word "appliance" should or should not remain in the Clause. That is the important point.
I repeat what I have already said, that all that will be concerned in the regulations which the Government envisage are charges on the four items, surgical boots and repairs, abdominal supports, elastic hosiery and wigs. Those are the only four which we have in mind.

Mr. Blenkinsop: At present?

Mr. Crookshank: At present, of course, because there are regulatory powers and we are not putting the specific charges in the Bill. We are following the precedent of the previous Act.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Surely not the Act of 1951?

Mr. Crookshank: No, it is the Act of 1949. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen do not want to hear what I have to say and keep on interrupting me, I shall not say it, but I was only trying to help and clear up some of the difficulties which have arisen during the debate.
The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. I. Brown), who made such an eloquent speech, as he always does on behalf of the mining industry, of which he has been an adornment so long, was rather under a misapprehension. He and others have not appreciated what I said when I pointed out that the charge which we had in mind for abdominal supports was £1.


That is a charge and not a percentage. Therefore, in the case of the belt such as the one costing over £4 to which he referred there is no question of anything more than £1 being charged.
In the same way, it is not suggested in anything that I have said or that the Government have in mind that a charge should be made for lumbar belts, trusses or spinal supports, though I understand that if a truss was ordered as a result of a medical prescription the ordinary 1s. precription charge would apply. That does not come under these provisions, and I merely mention it so that hon. Gentlemen will not some day say I did not say anything about it. If a truss were on a general practitioner's prescription it would be a prescription within the meaning of the regulations under the previous Act, but that has nothing to do with the provisions here. Therefore, none of those come within the regulations which I have in mind.
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) made a very impassioned speech in which he described a sad case where a pair of boots had been made for a patient and did not fit. May I say to him that there is no intention, in the regulations for which I shall be responsible of making any charge if it is necessary to replace an appliance because of a defect in the appliance or solely because of a change in the patient's condition. If the boots were wrong he would have to pay for the first pair, but would not pay for the new pair or even the pair after that, if a third pair had to be made to remedy the defect. I hope that that clears up that particular misapprehension.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), spoke of the dangers that might arise from quack remedies as a result of this and the resulting ill-health which would follow. I find it very hard to believe that within the sphere about which I am talking, namely, surgical boots, abdominal supports, elastic hosiery and wigs, any serious quackery can come about.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The right hon. Gentleman must accept the point that, in spite of what he says, he can bring in an Order at any time he likes as soon as this Bill passes making other charges and the House will have no opportunity of

stopping it. On any appliance he likes he can put a charge.

Mr. Crookshank: The power remains vested in the House under Clause 6 (7), because the power to make regulations conferred by this Bill will be exercisable by Statutory Instrument, and the last word, of course, remains with this House and not with me or with the Government at all.

Mr. Blenkinsop: After they are imposed.

Mr. Crookshank: The other point made by the hon. Member was that the administrative costs might be as much as £100,000 a year. That is too exaggerated for words, because we are only dealing with the part of the Clause which is concerned with appliances and we are only proposing to put a charge on four classes of appliance. It is hard to imagine—I am sure that the hon. Member does not, in fact, imagine it—how the administrative costs are to come to anything like that for these appliances. The administrative costs of collecting the charge would be absolutely minute.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The hospitals do not say so.

Mr. Crookshank: The hospitals do say so. We should stick to the appliances which this Amendment talks about.

Dr. Stross: The right hon. Gentleman very kindly gave us a fair warning when speaking about trusses and their prescription. He said that if they were on a prescription form and were taken to a chemist or the orthopaedic branch of a chemist, they would be subject to a 1s. charge if the certificate were that of a general practitioner. Will he clear that point up a little further? Does that mean that if they are prescribed in a hospital there is no charge? If it is a prescription on E.C.10 and is taken to a chemist to fix the truss there would be a 1s. charge, and if that is so it raises my last point. There is a printed form which the doctor must sign and which says, "In my view this patient is suffering from so and so and needs a truss." That is not an E.C.10 but will there be a 1s. charge on that or not?

Mr. Crookshank: All that shows how foolish it is to stray out of the rules of order, because that has nothing to do


with this particular point. I have merely safeguarded myself for the future, and I really cannot follow the hon. Gentleman into all these intricacies of different forms. I am sure he will absolve me from wanting to do so. The issue is only 1s. either way.

6.45 p.m.

Miss Herbison: The point I want to raise has something to do with that with which he is dealing. The Minister has said that the hospitals have stated quite definitely that this will not entail great expenditure. Since he has that assurance from the hospital, will he also tell us who in the hospitals is to do the work? Is it the almoner or who is it?

Mr. Crookshank: That is still being discussed.
We are dealing with appliances and I will not go back over the very large field of prescriptions, particularly as there are only four types of appliance in question. The number of these which would be disposed of in any given hospital is such a small figure that—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Despite what hon. Members say, the number of surgical boots, abdominal supports, elastic hosiery and wigs which are given in the hospitals is so small that it would not entail a great amount of administrative expenditure. I know that one chairman of a regional hospital board agrees with me. That is the information I have; that is what the hospitals tell me. I think that covers all the points which have been raised in the debate since I first spoke.

Mrs. Braddock: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us the number of these appliances which have been supplied in these hospitals in any one 12 months since the Health Service came into operation? The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to the fact that the number is very small, and I think we are entitled to be told the actual number.

Mr. Crookshank: I dare say if the hon. Lady puts a Question down in the ordinary way—

Mrs. Braddock: No.

Mr. Crookshank: But that is the way to get the figures circulated. If I merely give the information to the hon. Lady it will not be circulated to such an extent. Anyway, this is not the kind of information

which can be available in five minutes.

Mrs. Braddock: How, then, does the right hon. Gentleman know that it is so small?

Mr. Crookshank: I have some common sense, I hope.
I would again remind the Committee of what the Amendment does. It decides once and for all whether appliances should or should not remain within the ambit of this Clause. I would remind hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who may not have been here during the whole of the debate on this Amendment that this Bill is not in itself imposing any charges. What it is doing is giving power for charges to be imposed in the hospital field in exactly the same way as the first Act carried by the Labour Government gave power to impose prescription charges.
I have, mysteriously, got some information which, I hope, will help the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). I am told that there are about 800 appliances a day over the whole of the country.

Mrs. Braddock: Every day?

Mr. Crookshank: That is all. It is not much in relation to every hospital in the country. If it was 800 in the Liverpool hospital, in which the hon. Lady is so interested and where she does such good work, that would be one thing, but it is 800 for all the hospitals in the country. Obviously, the administrative work involved in this matter cannot be very great. We have spent a good deal of time on this problem, and I hope the Committee will find it reasonable now to come to a decision on this matter and pass to the next Amendment, because we have still quite a long way to go.

Sir Richard Acland: On a point of order. I suppose that the Patronage Secretary is about to move the Closure, but before he does so may I, with great and genuine respect for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) ask whether we are allowed to bring an attache case into the Chamber as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has done. I have no doubt that it was done to accommodate him, but I should like to ask whether it would not be better


to conform to the customs of the House in this matter.

Mr. Marquand: The recent speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has added nothing to what he said in reply to myself when I moved this Amendment some time ago He has listened to eloquent pleas from my hon. Friends, particularly from—

Mr. James Hudson: On a point of order. I was once prevented from bringing into the House an attaché case. The offence is more serious in that the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has been out of the Committee for some time and has left his case lying on the bench. We do not know what it contains. The rule against attaché cases was brought in during the Irish days, because of the likelihood of dangerous weapons being brought into the Chamber.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Mr. Marquand.

Mr. William Hamilton: Further to the point of order. Do you realise, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that my hon. Friends are calling attention to the fact that the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has a case in the Chamber?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a matter for me. It is not within the jurisdiction of the Chair.

Mr. George Brown: May I remind you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that during the last Parliament there was an occasion when, by the direction of Mr. Speaker, a Member was compelled to take a case out of the House? We are asking you to make the same rule applicable to the right hon. and gallant Member that applied in the last Parliament under the direction of Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy-Chairman: The matter is under the jurisdiction of the Serjeant at Arms.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: Surely it will be within your recollection, Mr. Hopkin Morris, as it is within mine, that on many occasions Members have been forbidden to have newspapers to read in the House of Commons. Surely if a newspaper is out

of order an attaché case is also out of order.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: I have here the Parliamentary debates for 1948–49. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am giving a catalogue of the contents of the case. I have HANSARD for 21st March and 27th March; the Report of the Department of Health for Scotland, which will be very useful; the Minutes of the proceedings on the Committee stage of the National Service Amendment Bill, which were ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 6th July, 1949. I have yet to learn that any of these documents is in any way dangerous.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order.

The Deputy-Chairman: I can only take one point of order at a time.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am in possession of the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "And of the case."] If the sensitive natures of hon. Members are in any way disturbed by any of these things I am prepared to leave the documents in the Committee here, and to remove the offending case.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Marquand: We look forward to the participation of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), in the debate when the next Amendment is moved, fortified by the ammunition which he has thought fit to bring into the Chamber.
I wanted to put on record the fact that the Minister of Health, having listened to such eloquent speeches as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), and to well-informed and cogently argued speeches, with great professional expertise, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) has made, has come no way whatsoever to meet us. He has not offered a single concession of any kind in his speech and he has entirely failed, though he has had hours in the meantime to gather it, to present any evidence whatsoever in support of his allegation that there has been an abuse of the consultant and hospital services in the supply of these appliances.
I assure him, as I know from personal knowledge when Minister of Pensions,


that a close review was made of the types of appliance which were being prescribed. It was done particularly for the purpose of ensuring that no appliances which might be embellishments rather than surgical aids were going through the Ministry of Pensions' supply department to the hospitals. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have made no attempt to support that allegation by proof, though he has had time to do so.
He has repeated the threat that lies behind this legislation, because he said that it is his intention to make these charges only, at present. It is because we find that reply completely unsatisfactory and because we are determined to

make another effort to get for the future the specific exclusion from the Bill of numerous appliances which we regard as vitally necessary, whoever may be in power, that we will have to go on with discussion of the Amendments standing in the names of my hon. Friends.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 290; Noes, 273.

Division No. 66.]
AYES
6.58 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cranborne, Viscount
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Alport, C. J. M.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Crouch, R. F.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Hollis, M. C.


Arbuthnot, John
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hope, Lord John


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hopkinson, Henry


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Davidson, Viscountess
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Baker, P. A. D.
Deedes, W. F.
Horobin, I. M.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Baldwin, A. E.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Banks, Col. C.
Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Barber, A. P. L.
Donner, P. W.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Barlow, Sir John
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hurd, A. R.


Baxter, A. B.
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Duthie, W. S.
Hyde, Lt.-Col, H. M.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Erroll, F. J.
Jennings, R.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Fell, A.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Finlay, Graeme
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Fisher, Nigel
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Kaberry, D.


Birch, Nigel
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Bishop, F. P.
Fort, R.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Black, C. W.
Foster, John
Lambert, Hon. G.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lambton, Viscount


Bossom, A. C.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Gage, C. H.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Braine, B. R.
Gammans, L. D.
Leather, E. H. C.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Godber, J. B.
Lindsay, Martin


Brooman-White, R. C.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Linstead, H. N.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Gough, C. F. H.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Bullard, D. G.
Gower, H. R.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Burden, F. F. A.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)


Butcher, H. W.
Harden, J. R. E.
Low, A. R. W.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Carson, Hon. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Cary, Sir Robert
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Channon, H.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
McAdden, S. J.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
McCallum, Major D.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hay, John
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Cole, Norman
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Mackeson, Brig, H. R.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
McKibbin, A. J.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Higgs, J. M. C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)




Maclay, Hon. John
Perkins, W. R. D.
Storey, S.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Pete, Brig. C. H. M.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Studholme, H. G.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Pitman, I. J.
Summers, G. S.


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Powell, J. Enoch
Sutcliffe, H.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Profumo, J. D.
Teeling, W.


Markham, Major S. F.
Raikes, H. V.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Marples, A. E.
Redmayne, M.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)
Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Maude, Angus
Robertson, Sir David
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Maudling, R.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Tilney, John


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Touche, G. C.


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Roper, Sir Harold
Turner, H. F. L.


Mellor, Sir John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Turton, R. H.


Molson, A. H. E.
Russell, R. S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Vane, W. M. F.


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Vosper, D. F.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Scott, R. Donald
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Nicholls, Harmar
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wellwood, W.


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Nutting, Anthony
Snadden, W. McN.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Oakshott, H. D.
Soames, Capt. C.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Odey, G. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Speir, R. M.
Wills, G.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
York, C.


Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Stevens, G. P.



Osborne, C.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Partridge, E.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Heath.


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Clunie, J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Adams, Richard
Cocks, F. S.
Glanville, James


Albu, A. H.
Coldrick, W.
Gooch, E. G.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Collick, P. H.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Cook, T. F.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cove, W. G.
Grey, C. F.


Awberry, S. S.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Crosland, C. A. R.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Baird, J.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Balfour, A.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Grimond, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Bence, C. R.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Benn, Wedgwood
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)


Benson, G.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hamilton, W. W.


Berwick, F.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hannan, W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hardy, E. A.


Bing, G. H. C.
Deer, G.
Hargreaves, A.


Blackburn, F.
Delargy, H. J.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Dodds, N. N.
Hastings, S.


Blyton, W. R.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hayman, F. H.


Boardman, H.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley, Regis)


Bowen, E. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Herbison, Miss M.


Bowles, F. G.
Edelman, M.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hobson, C. R.


Brockway, A. F.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Holman, P.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Houghton, Douglas


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hoy, J. H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Ewart, R.
Hubbard, T. F.


Burke, W. A.
Fernyhough, E.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Field, W. J.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Fienburgh, W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Finch, H. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Carmichael, J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Follick, M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Champion, A. J.
Foot, M. M.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Chapman, W. D.
Forman, J. C.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Janner, B.







Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Nally, W.
Steele, T.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Oldfield, W. H.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Oliver, G. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Orbach, M.
Stress, Dr. Barnett


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Oswald, T.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Padley, W. E.
Swingler, S. T.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Paget, R. T.
Sylvester, G. O.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Keenan, W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Kenyon, C.
Pannell, Charles
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Key Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


King, Dr. H. M.
Parker, J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Kinley, J.
Paton, J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pearson, A.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Peart, T. F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Timmons, J.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Poole, C. C.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Lewis, Arthur
Popplewell, E.
Tomney, F.


Lindgren, G. S.
Porter, G.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Viant, S. P.


Logan, D. G.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wallace, H. W.


MacColl, J. E.
Proctor, W. T.
Watkins, T. E.


McGhee, H. G.
Pryde, D. J.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


McInnes, J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Weitzman, D.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Rankin, John
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


McLeavy, F.
Reeves, J.
Wells, William (Walsall)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
West, D. G.


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rhodes, H.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Richards, R.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wilkins, W. A.


Manuel, A. C.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Willey, Frederic (Sunderland, N.)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Ross, William
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Mayhew, C. P.
Royle, C.
Williams, David (Neath)


Mellish, R. J.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Williams, Rev. Llyweiyn (Abertillery)


Messer, F.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mikardo, Ian
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Mitchison, G. R.
Short, E. W.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Monslow, W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Morley, R.
Slater, J.
Wyatt, W. L.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Yates, V. F.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Mort, D. L.
Snow, J. W.



Moyle, A.
Sorensen, R. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mulley, F. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Mr. Bowden and Mr. Wigg.


Murray, J. D.
Sparks, J. A.

Question put accordingly, "That 'or appliances' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 273.

Division No. 67.]
AYES
[7.8 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Birch, Nigel
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Alpert, C. J. M.
Bishop, F. P.
Cole, Norman


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Black, C. W.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Bossom, A. C.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Arbuthnot, John
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cranborne, Viscount


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Brains, B. R.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Baker, P. A. D.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol. N.W.)
Crouch, R. F.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.- Col. W. H.
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)


Baldwin, A. E.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Banks, Col. C.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Barber, A. P. L.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Barlow, Sir John
Bullard, D. G.
Davidson, Viscountess


Baxter, A. B.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Deedes, W. F.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Digby, S. Wingfield


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Burden, F. F. A.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Butcher, H. W.
Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Donner, P. W.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Doughty, C. J. A.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Carson, Hon. E.
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cary, Sir Robert
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Channon, H.
Duthie, W. S.




Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Redmayne, M.


Erroll, F. J.
Lindsay, Martin
Remnant, Hon. P.


Fell, A.
Lindsay, H. N.
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Healey)


Finlay, Graeme
Llewellyn, D. T.
Robertson, Sir David


Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Roper, Sir Harold


Fort, R.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Foster, John
Low, A. R. W.
Russell, R. S.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Gage, C. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Schofield, Lt. Col. W. (Rochdale)


Gammons, L. D.
McAdden, S. J.
Scott, R. Donald


Garner-Evans, E. H.
McCallum, Major D.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Godber, J. B.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McKibbin, A. J.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Gough, C. F. H.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Gower, H. R.
Maclay, Hon. John
Snadden, W. McN.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maclean, Fitzroy
Soames, Capt. C.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Speir, R. M.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Harden, J. R. E.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Stevens, G. P.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Markham, Major S. F.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Marples, A. E.
Storey, S.


Hay, John
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Heald, Sir Lionel
Maude, Angus
Studholme, H. G.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maudling, R.
Summers, G. S.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mellor, Sir John
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Molsan, A. H. E.
Teeling, W.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hollis, M. C.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hope, Lord John
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Hopkinson, Henry
Nicholls, Harmar
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Tilney, John


Horobin, I. M.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Touche, G. C.


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Turner, H. F. L.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Turton, R. H.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Nutting, Anthony
Vane, W. M. F.


Hurd, A. R.
Oakshott, H. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Odey, G. W.
Vesper, D. F.


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Jennings, R.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Osborne, C.
Wellwood, W.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Partridge, E.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Kaberry, D.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Williams, R. Dudey (Exeter)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wills, G.


Lambton, Viscount
Pitman, I. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wood, Hon. R.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
York, C.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.



Leather, E. H. C.
Profumo, J. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Raikes, H. V.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Heath.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Bacon, Miss Alice
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)


Adams, Richard
Baird, J.
Bing, G. H. C.


Albu, A. H.
Balfour, A.
Blackburn, F.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Blenkinsop, A.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Bence, C. R.
Blyton, W. R.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Benn, Wedgwood
Boardman, H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Benson, G.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.


Awbery, S. S.
Beswick, F.
Bowen, E. R.







Bowles, F. G.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Popplewell, E.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Houghton, Douglas
Porter, G.


Brockway, A. F.
Hoy, J. H.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hubbard, T. F.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Proctor, W. T.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pryde, D. J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Burke, W. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rankin, John


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reeves, J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Callaghan, L. J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Carmichael, J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rhodes, H.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Janner, B.
Richards, R.


Champion, A. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Chapman, W. D.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Clunie, J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Ross, William


Coldrick, W.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Royle, C.


Collick, P. H.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Cook, T. F.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Short, E. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Keenan, W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
King, Dr. H. M.
Slater, J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Kinley, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Snow, J. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur
Sparks, J. A.


Deer, G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Steele, T.


Delargy, H. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Dodds, N. N.
Logan, D. G.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Donnelly, D. L.
MacColl, J. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McGhee, H. G.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McInnes, J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Edelman, M.
McLeavy, F.
Swingler, S. T.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sylvester, G. O.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Ewart, R.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Field, W. J.
Manuel, A. C.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Fienburgh, W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thurtle, Ernest


Finch, H. J.
Mayhew, C. P.
Timmons, J.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mellish, R. J.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Follick, M.
Messer, F.
Tomney, F.


Foot, M. M.
Mikardo, Ian
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Viant, S. P.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Monslow, W.
Wallace, H. W.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Moody, A. S.
Watkins, T. E.


Glanville, James
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Gooch, E. G.
Morley, R.
Weitzman, D.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mort, D. L.
West, D. G.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Moyle, A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Grey, C. F.
Mulley, F. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Murray, J. D.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Nally, W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Grimond, J.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oldfield, W. H.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coln Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Orbach, M.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hamilton, W. W.
Oswald, T.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hannan, W.
Padley, W. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hardy, E. A.
Paget, R. T.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hargreaves, A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hastings, S.
Pannell, Charles
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Hayman, F. H.
Pargiter, G. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Parker, J.
Wyatt, W. L.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Paton, J.
Yates, V. F.


Herbison, Miss M.
Pearson, A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Peart, T. F.



Hobson, C. R.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Holman, P.
Poole, C. C.
Mr. Bowden and Mr. Wigg.

The Deputy-Chairman: I understand that the agreement is that the next Amendment, in page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert "other than artifical limbs," in the name of the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons), and those following, down to the last Amendment but two on page 370 of the Order Paper, can be taken together. I suggest to the Committee, however, that a good deal of the discussion on all these Amendments has already taken place on the previous Amendment and that this may, possibly, shorten the discussion upon them.

Mr. Frank Bowles: On a point of order. May I get this clear? I was not here at the very beginning when Sir Charles MacAndrew was in the Chair, but I understand that only four of these Amendments are to be selected. I wonder whether those are the four to which the right hon. Gentleman said a little while ago that the debate was confined. There are another 10 Amendments without which, unless the Opposition take some steps, if they can, to ensure that they are inserted into the Bill, the Minister, although we do not doubt his word of honour, would still have power, for instance, to make regulations prescribing charges for something other than those matters in the four Amendments which it is proposed to call.

The Deputy-Chairman: I understand that the agreement was that the whole of the discussion upon the series of Amendments would take place on the next Amendment, that four Divisions would be taken, that they would be selected by the Opposition themselves and that they may divide upon any four that they choose.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Further to that point of order. I do not think there is much between us. I think it is a question of interpretation of what the Committee have agreed upon. My understanding of the advice given by Sir Charles MacAndrew was that he said there would be a very wide debate upon the four Amendments which he had selected, and that they would be put to the vote. But the Amendment on which we have just voted was taken separately from those four which he selected; therefore, the debate which has just taken place has been upon the Amendment which has been disposed of, and that Amendment was dealt with in that way principally

to enable the Minister to make a statement.
Now I understand that we have reverted to the position which existed when Sir Charles gave his advice to the Committee. Therefore, we have a very wide debate upon the whole of these Amendments after which the four Amendments will be put and we may vote upon them.

Mr. Bowles: I was not a party to any agreement at all, but surely last week Sir Charles did say that it might be convenient to have a wide debate upon the whole of the 14 of these Amendments, which could then be put to the vote. Then an hon. Member on this side of the Committee said that that would not be convenient, and Sir Charles said, "All right, I will exercise my power of selection." That is quite clear to me. I am not quite sure whether, when the Chairman has indicated that he is prepared to have a Division upon all 14 Amendments, he can later say, "I will now use my power of selection."

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot give a Ruling upon that. The agreement, as I understand it, was that after the first Amendment there should be a general discussion on the second Amendment, taking in the remainder of the Amendments, and that there should be four Divisions, the Divisions to be selected not by the Chair but by the Committee.

Mr. McNeil: I am now in considerable doubt, Mr. Hopkin Morris. I thought it was clear, as my hon. Friend has said, that it is the Chair who will select the Amendments. There has been a general arrangement made in consultation with my hon. Friends most closely concerned, and there is an agreement. There has been a convenient arrangement which will permit the debate to take a wide scope within a certain range. But there cannot be any suggestion that we have chosen the Amendments which the Chair is to put to a Division. I want to make it quite plain, on behalf of my hon. Friends, that if we had our way we would take a vote on each of the 14 Amendments. When that point was put, Sir Charles MacAndrew put his point of view and said that he had an obligation to select the Amendments and that he would not call all the 14. The four


Amendments which are being called are and must be the selection of the Chair and not of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Bowles: I quite understand that the power of selection lies with the Chair. The point I am putting is quite simple. Sir Charles said last week that there would be a debate on the 14 Amendments and that there would be Divisions if the Committee wanted them. He now says—he certainly said so last week—that if that was not satisfactory he would use his power of selection. I am putting this to you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, for your consideration, that if the Chair has once said, "You may have a Division on 14 Amendments" he cannot say five minutes later, "Oh, no, I will use my power of selection." That is my only point which I am submitting for your consideration, Mr. Hopkin Morris. I do not know whether you would think fit to consult the Chairman of Ways and Means.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is clear that the Chair has power of selection, but I understand that this arrangement was come to by agreement, and that we are now carrying out that agreement.

Mr. Crookshank: As I understand it, there was to be a wide debate, but I understand that we have had a wide debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is what I understood. I then understood that the Chairman was to put the four selected Amendments; otherwise, we would not have discussed these very points which we have dealt with during the earlier debate. We have had speeches on such things as surgical boots, abdominal belts, and so forth. That was my understanding.
We were having the wide debate followed by such Divisions as the Opposition chose to call, but only on some or all of the four which had been selected by the Chairman—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think I might be allowed to finish my sentence. I know how hon. Members opposite love to interrupt me, and I do not mind that, but I do think that on a point of order I should be allowed to finish what I am saying. My understanding is that we should have a wide debate, and we have had it since 7.30; we have ranged over the whole field. I understood that the Chairman had selected only four Amendments,

and that owing to that arrangement, a Division could be taken on any or all four of those Amendments as the Opposition wished.

The Deputy-Chairman: As I understand the arrangement, after the first Amendment was taken there was to be a general discussion on the second Amendment, taking in the whole of the rest. I made the suggestion at the commencement of the discussion that in view of the speeches which I had heard while I was in the Chair—they ranged over the whole of these Amendments—the Committee might agree to take the matter shortly. But that has nothing to do with the agreement. That is what I understand the position to be.

Dr. Stross: Is the position not this? In view of the agreement which was made for the convenience of the Committee—and that includes the Government—is it not a fact that inasmuch as the Chair is not going to make the selection, after this wide debate it will be the Committee who will decide what Amendments they wish to divide upon. Since there are only four Amendments relating to articles on which charges are sought to be imposed, we shall, of course, know what to divide upon.

The Deputy-Chairman: We had better get on to the next Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: My recollection is quite clear. I have been in the Chamber the whole time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I was in the Committee the whole time that the argument was going on in relation to the bargain. My recollection is perfectly clear that the arrangement was that there should be a wide general debate, and that after the debate was concluded all the Divisions should be taken. It seems that we are now going back again to having a wide debate in spite of the bargain arrived at by the Committee.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have stated what my understanding is of the arrangement. I do not think that there is any use in continuing this discussion any further.

Mr. James Simmons: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert "other than artificial limbs."

7.30 p.m.

Mr. J. Hudson: On a point of order, Mr. Hopkin Morris. I understood that prior to the Divisions, when the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) left the Chamber with his special receptacle, you ruled that the question of the retention of the case which he brought in was a matter not for the Chair but for the Serjeant at Arms. With very great respect to you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, and great regard, I want to suggest that it would only be a matter for the intervention of the Serjeant at Arms if a decision were taken by the House instructing the Serjeant at Arms or a Ruling was explicitly given by you. The matter assumes more serious proportions than the mere theory I am now submitting to you because, after that statement, with great alacrity, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, after showing us the contents of his case, took it hurriedly from the Chamber, apparently under the impression from your Ruling that if he did not do so the Serjeant at Arms, on his own responsibility, could have taken action against him.
Whether I have understood that aright or no, I put this to you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that by your Ruling you have unintentionally put into the hands of the Serjeant at Arms a power that hitherto he has never possessed. You have interfered with the right of the House which insists upon the Serjeant at Arms being regarded as its servant and you have made him the master in a situation which compelled, as I am suggesting to you, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to leave the Chamber extremely hurriedly with the case which he had illegally brought into it.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Serjeant at Arms has certain duties, which are laid down, and there is no question of my extending his powers at all. The powers are there. There is no point in discussing this point of order any further.

Mr. Attlee: This is really a serious matter. The Serjeant at Arms is the servant of the House. He has certain instructions with regard to what should be brought into this Chamber. When hon. Members are actually in this Chamber they are under the jurisdiction of the occupant of the Chair. The Serjeant at Arms in this Chamber can only act under the orders of the Chair. It would be

quite out of order for him to have entered without an order from the Chair or without the will of the House having been expressed, to remove the article which the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) brought in. I submit that there should be great consideration before it is laid down that the Serjeant at Arms has a right, on his own authority, to act in this Chamber.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: May I say first that of course I did not leave the Chamber with the attache case for any reason except to accelerate the progress of the debate and to ensure that the frivolous and ridiculous interruptions which were going on should be brought to an end as soon as possible? I made no objection, for instance, to the receptacle which has been introduced into the Chamber by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), which is quite as large as anything I brought in, because we are here discussing a serious subject, and I think that these interruptions, especially that of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), show the amount of seriousness to be attached to their filibustering tonight.

Mrs. Braddock: I understood a lady's handbag was something that could be brought into the House. I have always carried this with me and no objection has been taken to it. I think it most childish on the part of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), because he was caught out with some case which he should not have brought into the Chamber, to try to put some responsibility on someone else in order to divert attention from himself.

The Deputy-Chairman: There is a Standing Order with regard to this jurisdiction. The Leader of the Opposition stated that in this House the Serjeant at Arms has no jurisdiction, and that is absolutely correct. I gave no instruction that the offending case should be taken out, but that could not be done by the Serjeant at Arms under the Standing Order, which is about bringing things into the House. In my Ruling tonight there has been no expansion of the powers of the Serjeant at Arms in this Chamber. I think that we might now proceed.

Mr. J. Hudson: Further to that point of order. I submit to you that the whole of the facts of the matter, which we saw for ourselves, indicated that action was only taken by the right hon. and gallant Member after you had given that Ruling. He was aware, of course, when he brought the case in of the powers of the Serjeant at Arms. I beg of you to listen—on a point of order—

The Deputy-Chairman: This incident is now over. The offending article was taken out and we might now get on with the business.

Mr. Hudson: May I submit to you that the right hon. and gallant Member was aware of that Rule which you have quoted—that his bag ought not to have been brought into the House—because he has had his attention called to that matter on earlier occasions. He himself has brought the bag here and we have told him—

The Deputy-Chairman: I have listened patiently to the hon. Member, and I think the Committee have listened patiently to him. I think we might now be allowed to proceed with the business.

Mr. Simmons: I will now deal with my Amendment, which deals with appliances other than artificial limbs. As the discussion is ranging over a whole group of Amendments, I wish to ask how, when the Government or the Minister of Health make charges, they discriminate? How does the Minister pick out here and there what he is to charge upon? What is the criterion and the standard laid down? Invalid chairs and motor tricycles, which save shoe leather, are free, but surgical boots are taxed. Why is there this discrimination?
Obviously, of course, we are against all these charges, but as the charges are being made, I think we have some right to know on what basis they are being made. We have been told that the charge on surgical boots is because people need to have boots anyhow. That is about the weakest argument I have ever heard. As was said when we were discussing the previous Amendment, people do not wear surgical boots for fun. They do not wear them for the sake of their appearance; they wear them because they are compelled to wear them. If people are compelled to wear them through ill health or disability, why should we penalise them by this monstrous charge?
In 1951, 15,133 war pensioners had new surgical boots and 28,637 had repairs. The Minister did not know the figures in regard to National Health patients, he told us. I will give them to him. In 1951 the Ministry of Pensions supplied National Health Service patients with 52,785 pairs of surgical boots. They had repairs done to 33,058 pairs and adapted to surgeon's specifications 204,630 pairs. All these are to be chargeable against the patient when this Bill and its attendant orders come into operation. We say that it is a monstrous imposition upon people who have enough suffering to bear to have this charge put upon them.
As this surgical operation on the part of the Minister of Health is to raise only £250,000 it has made some of us very suspicious. It looks like the thin edge of a pretty thick wedge. We have no doubt that at the moment the Minister is quite sincere when he says that his present—and mark that he used the word "present"—intention, and the present intention of the Government, is to impose charges only on the four appliances he has mentioned.
But how are we to know how the mind of this Government will turn? How are we to know whether, if they get into a tight corner, they may not want £750,000 or £1 million and that they will get that money by making charges on other of these requirements? Although we have the assurance that most of the things listed in the Amendments which we are discussing will not be within the ambit of the Bill, we want to see that in black and white before we accept the assurance.
We on this side of the Committee do not trust the Tories. We do not trust their promises. We have not yet had our good red meat. We have not yet had many of the things promised by the Tory politicians at the last General Election. But many of the people whom we are proud to represent have had many things they were not promised, and do not want. They have had unemployment for one thing. So, therefore, I say that we have the right to insist that if the Government do not intend to make a charge upon these various appliances, we should have that stated in black and white in the Bill.
In discussing this question of artificial limbs, I must declare my interest. By raising my trouser leg I could display


my interest, but I will content myself with declaring it. There is an overwhelming case for the exemption of artificial limbs from health charges, and I hope to convince the Minister of this, so that he will put it in black and white in the Bill. I believe that the Minister is a kindly man when not upset and harassed because his Parliamentary timetable is out of gear, and I am sure that when he realises how much human happiness has accrued from the provision of free artificial limbs he will, at any rate, accept this Amendment.
The war disabled have always been exempt both from the charge for artificial limbs and from the charge for the upkeep and maintenance of them. It would be monstrous to impose this charge upon them, and, to give the Government credit, I do not think they intend to impose it on those who come under the control of the Ministry of Pensions.
Last year, war pensioners were supplied with 2,979 artificial legs and 729 artificial arms; a total of 47,770 repairs were carried out to artificial legs and 3,299 repairs to arms. I would point out to the Committee, however, that National Health amputees are also supplied with limbs through the Ministry of Pensions, and last year 13,174 new legs were supplied and 38,224 repairs to legs were carried out. The figures for arms were 2,968 and 2,103 respectively. So there is a large number of people who are involved in these threatened charges, because until we have it in the Bill and so long as the Government have the power by statutory order to impose these charges, they are threatened people.
7.45 p.m.
As I said, we on this side of the Committee just do not trust the Tories because of their philosophy; because of their record and their outlook on life, and because of what they are. The very least we can do for the man who has lost a limb in battle is to replace it with the best possible substitute. Over very many years—and this is not a party point at all—the limb surgeons, technicians, fitters and makers at the Ministry of Pensions have evolved the finest artificial limbs in the world. Research is still going on and improvements are still being made.
This unrivalled organisation, which has served disabled ex-Service men for more

than 30 years, was immediately available to the National Health Service on its inception, and the Ministry of Pensions is now handling more National Health Service cases than war-disabled cases. That is as it should be. Citizens who lose limbs in industry through accident or disease have an equal claim with the war disabled for the best substitute to replace the lost limb.
It has to be the best, and that is why we are pressing this matter tonight. Only the best is good enough for those who have given their limbs in the service of their country, either in battle or in industry. They are entitled to be assisted with all the resources of the State through the Health Service and through the Ministry of Pensions so that they may, as much as possible and in spite of their disability, live a normal and happy life. That is why I ask for the removal of artificial limbs from the ambit of these charges.
What happened before the National Health Service began to deal with civilian limbless? My right hon. Friend mentioned the matter earlier this evening. Some of them never had an artificial limb. They could not contemplate the expense of getting one. So they went about on crutches and suffered strain and malformation of their bodies as a result. They suffered doubly both from the amputation and from these other disabilities because they were not being supplied with an adequate substitute for that which they had lost. They suffered from paralysis and such complaints.
Others had artificial limbs supplied by insurance companies, and the less said about some of those the better. Many of them were badly fitted or unsuited to the particular form of disability. No proper walking training was given to those supplied with them. The limbs were made of inferior material by inferior workmen. The whole set-up was unsatisfactory. When the appliances broke down they were often never looked at again.
Some people scraped together enough money to buy an artificial limb. Sometimes their neighbours subscribed to buy the limb for them. We have heard many stories of neighbours in working-class districts clubbing together to help one of their unfortunate brothers.
When someone was in trouble these people whom hon. Gentlemen opposite look down upon talked about how old Jack had lost his leg at the pit or on the railway and would probably never be able to work again. They said, "If only he could get an artificial leg to enable him to get about a bit, that would help him." They used to organise a collection round the streets. It was a case of the poor helping the poor.
That was in the old days before the National Health Service. We on this side of the Committee will never forget these people. It is they who make us proud to be Members of Parliament as their representatives. These people either scraped enough money together themselves or were supplied with an artificial limb as a result of the love, generosity, comradeship and fellowship of their neighbours.
Often they found that they could not afford to get the limb repaired or renewed. The result was that in the first 12 or 18 months of the National Health Service the Ministry of Pensions had a flood of out-of-date broken-down limbs from disabled people. Among them were veritable instruments of torture looking for all the world like instruments of the Spanish Inquisition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), has already referred to the time when he was at the Ministry of Pensions before I went there. He was there when the change-over began and all these contraptions came in. There were ramshackle legs tied up with pieces of string, tape and wire. There was one leg made of concrete or concrete and gravel.
Our people suffered from these disabilities before the Labour Government brought in the free Health Service and commissioned the Ministry of Pensions to give the injured in industry the same benefits as those which had been given to the war disabled. As chairman of the Ministry's Artificial Limb Production Committee at that time, I was soon made aware of the accumulated suffering of thousands of civilian disabled who had not had the good fortune which those who lost a limb in battle had of coming immediately under the attention of the limb surgeons, fitters and makers of the Ministry of Pensions.
I wonder whether the Minister and most hon. Members would willingly put a curb on the happiness and laughter of children, especially handicapped children. I am sure that they would not. I should like to mention the tragic little children who suffer amputation, often as a result of accidents. They are to be found in the Ministry of Pensions limb-fitting centres.
Many are little tots aged three or four, and there, because of the Labour Government's National Health Service, their tragedy is turned to hope and, with the realisation of that hope, to joy and laughter. I ask hon. Members to envisage a little child aged three or four with a double amputation being able to run about on artificial legs, happy and confident in spite of his handicap.
The Government surely cannot with these charges put a tax on the laughter and happiness of little children. Today these children get what the children of a past generation were denied because their parents could not afford it. They are getting it because our Labour Government brought in the National Health Service and brought within the ambit of that Service the provision of artificial limbs to civilians, including children.
Is this charge essential? Is it fair? Already nearly 50,000 civilians have received artificial legs and nearly 8,000 have received artificial arms through the Service. Is it fair to make those who suffer amputation at a later date pay when the others got their artificial limbs free? Does the Minister really want disabled persons to go back to the days of crutches and peg-legs. Long John Silver may be a romantic figure on the stage or the screen, but a one-legged or a peg-legged man with only a crutch or a peg to help him along is a dead loss in industry.
Most of these amputees want to play their part in industry. The Ministry of Pensions amputees are playing their part, because they have been properly trained in the use of their artificial limbs and re-equipped physically and mentally to do their job. We do not expect to get full production from a Heath Robinson contraption tied up with tape and wire. In industry such a thing would not be tolerated. Neither can we expect a disabled person to pull his weight in industry unless we adequately replace what he has lost and, by training, re-equip him for


the job. If we do that, he will give us as much production as a normal man.
Artificial limbs should be issued free. But, if those arguments are not sufficient, I ask the Minister to consider another point. I am not ashamed of being sentimental, especially about the difficulties of my less fortunate brethren, but if my arguments so far are regarded as sentimental, I ask the Minister to look at this matter from the angle of self-interest. Make these men efficient units on the production line. It will pay the nation good dividends. Stop this niggling. Put the words of this Amendment in the Bill. Do not spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. Do not keep willing workers off the production line for the price of an artificial limb.
It was said of old,
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.
Nothing was said about a "bob" for a prescription. We say, "a limb for a limb" to give the fullest encouragement to the disabled to face the future with courage and with hope.

Dr. Stross: We had a long debate on the first Amendment today, and it has been agreed that about 14 Amendments shall now be taken together. I hope that I shall not be guilty of using any argument which has already been used today. I am fortified in that hope by the fact that I have sat here since 3.30 and have heard everything that has been said. The importance of these Amendments, seven of which are in my own name, has been fully confirmed by the Minister this afternoon, especially on the last occasion when he spoke.
We had some fears at the beginning of the debate, and when, ultimately, the Minister made his statement he made it clear that he will insist on making regulations in future. We shall have no safeguard whatever either about the actual amounts he proposes to charge for the four appliances specified on Second Reading or that he will not bring other articles into the scope of this Clause at some future time. If anyone follows him in his high office, his successor will not be so bound.
8.0 p.m.
There has been some discussion today on the point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Powell) that, after all, the Minister was

merely following a precedent set by the Labour Government in the Act of 1949. I think the Minister must agree, and if he does not I hope he will say so, that under that Act no action was taken. Nothing was done, and, when anything was done, it was about teeth and spectacles, and was done under another Act. That Act was the 1951 Act, and Section 2 (3)—I do not have to read it to the Committee—made a complete change with regard to technique, in that everything had to be done by Order in Council and no Order in Council could be recommended until there had been affirmative Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.
I hope we shall not hear so much more about the 1949 Act, or, if we do, I hope hon. Members opposite will not mind if we remind them that the 1949 Act was not the only Act under which action was ever taken by the Labour Government, but that it was under the Act of 1951, when it was not done by regulations and in which the Minister was not empowered to act by means of the regulation technique.
Having said that, I am entitled to say that the way in which hon. Members opposite are behaving in regard to these arguments makes me feel that a Labour Government has only to have dreams or thoughts about something or other for a succeeding Tory Government to seize upon them and implement them. May be, that is what Tory Governments exist for—to seize upon things which we never intended to carry out and which we found must not be carried out, but upon which they say, "Here we have something; this is what we can do at long last."
I said at the beginning that I feel that we were fully justified in putting down these Amendments. There has been a good deal of talk about corsets, and I can tell the Minister where he went wrong and where there was some confusion in the Committee. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but the Minister must learn something about corsets, because he spoke about them. He used the words "many alleged abuses," and I am glad that he used the word "alleged," and that, when the matter was put to him, he had not got any evidence. He said that there are borderline cases.
May I put it to him that what has been happening and the kind of story that has


reached him is this. Abuse has certainly occurred in a direction which I will specify. Patients, usually middle-aged and rather plump women, have been told by the representatives of commercial companies which manufacture corsets with patent names that they would feel very much better if they were these patent corsets, and that they should go to their general practitioner and get him to say that they were suffering from visceroptosis—whatever that may mean—I do not want to talk about gruesome details, nor do I want to send hon. Members home feeling very ill, although I think that, by the time we are finished, we shall all be suffering from everything except housemaid's knee.
This technique of going to the family doctor, telling him that the patient had severe visceroptosis, and asking him to help get these corsets free of Purchase Tax—they paid for the corsets, but got them free of Purchase Tax—resulted in corsets being supplied by private firms who send out their touts after giving them half a dozen lessons by correspondence course, and whose duty it then is to sell this type of corset.

Mr. Crookshank: I must rise to ask you, Mr. Thomas, how far this debate is going? I understood that we were discussing an Amendment about artificial limbs. All this is very interesting, but it seems to me that we are now exactly where we were before on a previous Amendment—ranging over the whole field.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): I think it is perfectly clear that my predecessor in the Chair gave a Ruling that we would have a very wide discussion covering all these other Amendments specifying different appliances which hon. Members would like to be omitted from the Clause. The Committee did agree—and it is my impression, although I was not in the Chair at the time—that we would discuss all these Amendments, and that, after this broad discussion on all these various points, there would if necessary, be four Divisions.

Dr. Stross: I am grateful to you, Mr. Thomas; that is exactly what I understood.
After all, the words, "surgical corsets" are used in an Amendment which bears

my name, and my name also heads a list of seven others on the next page of the Order Paper. I thought the Minister was behaving somewhat peevishly, merely because I know more about corsets than he does. This is a serious discussion, and the Minister must not be frivolous with the Committee. This is a matter of health, and sometimes a matter of the only little enjoyment that some people can get out of life.
There is a tendency for people to abuse the family doctor by trying to persuade him to prescribe a certain type of corset fitted with ridiculous pads, the wearing of which would suggest that the kidneys are in front and the stomach at the back, or whatever it may be. All this, as hon. Members of the Committee well know, is brought about in order to sell an article which is not worth the money asked for it, but this has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
This is the story which the Minister has heard. It is the sort of tittle-tattle which has persuaded him to come here and say, "We have heard of cases of abuse: some cases are on the borderline of being merely reinforced corsets." The Minister made reference to the charge for abdominal surgical belts and said he wanted people to have them free, but he does not understand what he means by that or what these things really are. I beg him to listen to those who do. He says he will not charge a man or woman who is ruptured for a truss, but what are these other appliances but trusses?
Does not the Minister know that one can rupture oneself through strain or get a rupture in the epigastric area? Does he not know that people who work with pig iron, men who work in the mines, people who have had operations and go back to work before they are well can have ruptures? There are doctors in the Committee, not only on this side but opposite, who know these things.
I note that the Minister says that he will supply trusses at the present time, although, in future, he might have to charge for them, and, in any event, he will charge the patient 1s. for being fool enough to go to his general practitioner whereas, if he had had it written out on a scrap of paper, he may not have had to pay the shilling. I think the Minister has been badly advised. I am sure that he knows more about other things than


he does about this, but we have to blame him, because he it is who sits there and must take the responsibility. He should have armed himself with much better knowledge before he came to the House on the Committee stage of the Bill.
I will say nothing about elastic hosiery. The few words spoken in previous speeches show that the imposition of a charge here is an attack upon middle-aged and elderly women who have borne many children and who suffer from varicose veins and ulceration, and who need not be tied to their beds or their couches if they wear elastic stockings. I will not go into these details, but, so far, we have had nothing from the Minister about them and our appeals seem to make no impression on him. We are wondering who has been getting at him and telling him that it is so important to seize this £250,000 out of the crippled—most of them poor and most of them crippled through industrial accidents.
Is it reasonable or fair to suggest that he has suddenly been told that they cannot possibly afford to keep him in his present position unless he seizes this £250,000? I do not believe that is true, nor does anyone else. The right hon. Gentleman is one of the most influential members of his party, and quite rightly so; he is one of the most experienced and usually one of the most urbane and knowledgeable. We have told him before that we know he does not like this Bill; and he must loathe this part of it, in which he is perpetrating injustices upon the lame and the halt and the crippled.
The last thing I want to say to him is perhaps of a more positive nature, and it is to suggest to him that he could have found the money so easily in other ways. The Minister knows quite well that if all the hospitals in the country could save a further £1 a day by buying a little more cheaply through better centralised buying—better than they have yet been able to achieve—that would mean a saving of £1 million a year.
Does not the Minister think he could ask them to get together and to create a great co-operative organisation for centralised buying and for an interchange of their goods? This would save £1

million a year at least; it might save as much as £8 million to £10 million a year. Vast sums of money could be saved. This could not be done in the first moments of the scheme, and the Service is still young, but these are the directions in which we could go.
If the Minister wanted the money, surely he could have forgone the method he has adopted under the Bill and could have saved it perhaps in this way: he could have looked at the expenses of the part-time consultants. May I put this to him—and it is a very serious point which no doubt has been put to him from other sources. I can give the example of a hospital in the London area which has only 200 beds but which has 64 part-time visiting consultants. In addition to their normal sessional fees, they receive £11,000 a year for travelling time. In addition, they receive £2,100 a year mileage fees. That is over £13,000 in travelling time and mileage fees, and I put it to the Minister that it is worth looking at this type of thing, because one could staff with full-time consultants, I think, more comprehensively, more efficiently and much more cheaply.
Sitting in front of me is the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer), probably the finest and most experienced lay administrator this country has ever had, and I hope he will be able to give some examples from his personal experience—I know he could give many examples—to show how we could save so as not to need to adopt the technique in the Bill.
I have given the Minister those two examples because I do not want him to think that we have no other ideas and that we do not want to help him. We do want to help him, and if we offer our help, as we always do, in positive ways like this, should we not be allowed to say this: while he has not given us very much consideration so far, surely he will at least promise us the positive rather than the negative procedure when we come to discuss these matters. Will he not write some of these things into the Bill, so that neither he nor anyone who follows him, of whatever complexion politically he may be, will be able to betray the finest moral instrument we have ever created for the health of our people?

8.15 p.m.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), asked hon. Members on this side of the Committee not to refer to the 1949 Act. We can fully understand the qualms which any reference to that Act at present produces in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not intend to refer to the 1949 Act, but to the 1951 Act, to which the hon. Gentleman also made reference. I hope that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons), who spoke so eloquently earlier, and indeed other hon. Members who may follow, will explain to me the difference in principle between a charge on blindness or on shortness of sight and a charge on baldness.

Mr. Baird: I will gladly do so.

Mr. Alport: If the hon. Gentleman allows me to finish my point, I will certainly give way to him.
We know quite well that, according to the Minister's statement on Second Reading, the charge to be made was to apply to wigs and was to be £2 10s. We know, equally, that in 1951 a charge was to be made on spectacles and that the amount was to be something over £1. I cannot for the life of me—although I am going bald myself—see that a disability through baldness is any different from a disability for somebody who is losing his sight.

Mr. Baird: I will answer the hon. Gentleman quite briefly. There is no difference; we were both wrong. There is, however, this one difference between us. The charges imposed by the Front Bench which I support were imposed reluctantly, whereas hon. Gentlemen opposite are imposing these charges gleefully.

Mr. Alport: That is an entirely malicious and wrong statement. No one on this side of the Committee nor, I believe, in any part of the Committee, takes any pleasure whatever in imposing these charges. If we are to go into this matter, I remind hon. Members opposite that if they look back at the speeches which were made immediately after the announcement of the charges on prescriptions in 1949, they will find that there was no outcry from hon. Members opposite and no mention whatver of the subject in the debate which followed on the

economic situation. [HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] I do not want to pursue that, however, because I should be straying far from the point we are discussing, and I realise that it is a very sore and difficult subject for hon. Members opposite.
In any event, we now have an admission from the whole of the party opposite that they were wrong in 1951. It has taken them a long time to realise that fact. It has taken them precisely the time during their movement from Government to Opposition, from responsibility to irresponsibility; and that is the whole difference between the situation now and the situation then. If any hon. Member opposite can explain to us, during this part of the Committee stage, the difference in principle between a charge placed upon an appliance connected with shortness of sight or loss of sight or blindness and a charge connected with baldness we shall be more impressed by the arguments which they have been putting forward for the last few hours than we have been up to the present.

Mr. W. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) and his colleagues the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) have greatly reinforced the debating forces of the other side so far as our discussions of the social services are concerned, but we had not the benefit of their advice in the 1945 Parliament. If we had had, perhaps we should be readier to listen to what the hon. Member for Colchester had to say tonight about what happened in 1949. I can assure him at once that when legislation was introduced giving the late Government power to impose the 1s. prescription charge it was strenuously opposed by a good many of my hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can look up the record. They will find that what I say is quite true.
I, in common with a lot of my hon. Friends, did not vote for that proposal, and I am very glad indeed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was able to persuade his colleagues in the Cabinet of that day that it was, administratively, an impossibility. Anyhow, the result was, whatever the argument at the time, that, at the end of the day, they did not impose upon


the people of Great Britain the atrocity the present Government are doing so gleefully.
Certainly, the introduction of these charges in this Clause justifies the oft-repeated complaints that some of us on this side of the Committee have made. We have always believed that the return of a Tory Government would mean the methodical dismantling of the National Health Service. Moreover, some of us believe that the Labour Government last year were very foolish in introducing charges for dentures and spectacles. I shall come a little later in my speech to a difference on this point between my right hon. Friends last year and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite now.
I want to refer for a moment, as many hon. Members have in this debate, to the contribution made on Second Reading by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West. A large section of the national Press and many Members of this Committee have acclaimed that speech. As I heard it, there was nothing remarkable about it at all, for it was a restatement of the traditional Tory attitude—except that it was couched in more than usually subtle tones. What was the hon. Gentleman's position? What is his attitude on the charges? We may as well get clear what really is the attitude of the Government. Are they imposing the charges because they believe that the financial and economic condition of Great Britain does not allow expenditure above the ceiling on the Health Service? That was the position of my right hon. Friends last year. I did not agree with that, and a lot of us on this side did not.
What is the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West, said, on Second Reading:
I have always believed in these charges."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 971.]
There is nothing new about that. We have always believed that to be so about the Tory Party. He did not say that these charges were imposed on financial or economic grounds. He told the House quite clearly:
I have always believed in these charges.
He went on to say that he believed in them not only on economic grounds, but on social and ethical grounds. That is

what he said. There is nothing new about that. I am really surprised at some hon. Members who find this speech of the hon. Gentleman a revelation. It is nothing but traditional Tory policy dressed up in slightly more sophisticated garments.
I turn to another statement of the hon. Gentleman which is so typical of his party's attitude. The hon. Gentleman was speaking about the award to the general practitioners. We have a different picture there. He was referring to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale had said about the Danckwert's award. My right hon. Friend had said he was horrified. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West, said:
Let me say that that delights me."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 966.]
It delights him to see £40 million awarded to the general practitioners when he finds is socially and ethically correct to charge poor people in the way envisaged in this miserable Bill.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: Let me say quite frankly what delights me about this award. There are many matters of professional remuneration, not only in the general practitioner field, that will certainly have to be considered. It seems to be also clear that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was on perfectly sound ground in lamenting that the terms of reference to Mr. Justice Danckwerts were too wide. I think that that is true. What delights me is that at long last justice has been done to the most important people in the Health Service, and that at long last the agreement which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale failed to implement year by year to the general practitioners has been brought home.

Mr. Griffiths: There is nothing in what the hon. Gentleman has said that would cause too much consternation among some of my hon. Friends. We were always prepared to meet the general practitioners. We have always said so. An offer was made by the previous Government to the general practitioners. But what I find so interesting in the hon. Gentleman's speech is how clearly it gives away the sort of attitude of mind which, however it is disguised in the phrases of 1952, is so typical of what is worst in the party opposite.
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that those of his right hon. and hon. Friends who collaborated in producing their pamphlet on the social services, and whom I have watched in this Committee, lack, despite their superficial slickness in their, attitude towards these so human problems, that essential kindheartedness which—[Laughter.] Yes, I have seen that exhibited on many occasions by some of them whom we were fighting even in the 1945 Parliament, and before that. I say that their attitude reminds me very frequently of the attitude displayed by gentlemen who spoke in similar accents before 1939, and who were black shirts.
8.30 p.m.
Let us accept their argument as being based upon the deterrent principle—that the changes are to prevent abuses. Let us examine that suggestion. Last year the previous Government imposed certain charges. I do not want to go into that at too much length tonight. I have expressed my point of view of that tonight, as I did last year. Let us look at the effect of that. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South - West (Mr. Powell), challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), tonight when she said that the imposition of these charges might encourage unscrupulous manufacturers to prey on the poor people who wished to obtain these appliances.
Has he not heard that in pre-National Health Service days, in those palmy days when his party enjoyed undisputed majorities for long periods in this House, poor people who needed these many appliances often obtained them by paying small weekly sums? If they could get them in that manner, by the weekly contribution method, in the majority of cases without the supervision of a skilled practitioner in their fitment, they did not inquire too closely into the qualifications of those who were supplying them. Has he not heard about that? Does he not think it possible that that might re-emerge?
I ventured to interrupt him tonight, when I gave the example of what has already happened arising from charges in the ophthalmic service last year. This matter recently obtained a great deal of prominence in the "Sunday Express," who reported that there were greatly increased

sales of spectacles in chain stores—that means in places like Woolworths—and that in villages and towns in Great Britain there were emerging unqualified practitioners who were approaching poor people and selling them spectacles on the weekly contribution basis. The Parliamentary Secretary was approached, and she told the Press—and I was glad to hear it that the Ministry were very greatly disturbed at this development. They have every cause to be disturbed. Now they introduce a Bill which will extend that iniquitous practice into further fields. These are extremely evil consequences, but I will leave this matter here and hope to introduce it at a later stage.
I am glad to have this opportunity of attempting to show the inconsistencies and dishonesties of the more pamphlet-producing section of the new Tories. I leave it there, but I assure them that, as the days go by no amount of clever writing or speech-making will disguise from the people of Great Britain the true character of certain sections of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Dr. Broughton: This debate covers 14 Amendments, each of which deals with a specific item of surgical appliance, some of which will be charged by the Government and others of which we wish to have mentioned in the Bill so that they shall be excluded from the possibility of any charge in future. I do not wish to detain the Committee unduly, and I shall confine my remarks to those items which the Minister named when he stated that charges would be imposed.
First I wish to speak about wigs. Since the free issue of wigs under the Health Service a large number of ignorant people have cried with racuous voices that this issue is an extravagant waste of public money. I wish to try to convince the Minister that there has been no extravagance, and that the issue of free wigs should continue. First, let me examine the financial aspect. On 4th February of this year the Minister, in answer to a Question of mine, informed me that last year 9,750 wigs were issued free of charge to Health Service patients in England and Wales. Fewer than 10,000 wigs were issued free to our population of many millions.
This charge which the Government intend to impose will act as a deterrent on people who require wigs, and it is,


therefore, most probable that fewer free wigs will be issued next year. For the sake of this argument, let us assume that, say, 10,000 wigs will be issued next year. The Minister has stated that he will impose a charge of £2 10s. on each wig. If he expects to collect £2 10s. in respect of each wig, on 10,000 wigs, he will gather into the Exchequer £25,000.
That is a very small amount of money within the expenditure of the National Health Service of £400 million. It works out that the Minister is, by means of this mean and cruel imposition, trying to save one-sixteenth thousand part of the cost of the National Health Service. This does not prevent abuse. I am sure that the Minister cannot claim that there has been any abuse in the issue of free wigs. There has not been any unnecessary or excessive demand for them. The purpose of this imposition is to limit the number of people having wigs, and the effect will be to limit the wigs to those people who need them and can afford to pay for them.
It will, of course, hit hardest those of slender financial means, and I regard it as a shameful example of Tory thoughtlessness. I have noticed in my professional experience that people who suffer from the unfortunate affliction of having a completely hairless head often suffer embarrassment out of all proportion to their slight degree of abnormality. That feeling probably arises from some deep-seated emotional origin. I should like to give a case that came within my own professional experience, before the days of the Health Service.
There was a young working woman who had what I should describe as a reasonably good head of hair. She did not have permanent waving, tinting, shampoos and all the rest of the things that are provided at the ladies' hairdressers because she could not afford them. She certainly made no claim to her hair being her crowning glory; nevertheless, it was something of which she need not feel ashamed. Unfortunately, the day came when that woman lost every hair on her head, and that made her feel very unhappy. She could not afford a wig, and I think, in a sense, she must have felt ashamed of her nakedness. So great was that woman's

embarrassment and depression that she put her head into a gas oven.
I am greatly concerned lest anyone in need of a wig should be unable to have one, owing to inability to pay the proposed cost. I think that it is uncharitable and callous to pass this legislation. The effect of withholding the relief given by a wig from anyone in need of such a comfort can be really serious.
The next appliance on which a charge is to fall is surgical boots. The Minister cannot claim that there has been any abuse in the use of surgical boots. They are needed only by those who are at least to some extent crippled, and the majority of cripples are limited by reason of their deformity in their earning capacity. The heavy burden of having to pay £3 for a pair of surgical boots will fall upon those who can least afford the expense.
I consider £3 an excessive price to pay for footwear. The majority of my constituents do not pay £3 for a pair of boots, certainly not for their working boots. If the Tory Government remains in power it is very likely that the majority of my constituents will have to return to the wearing of clogs as they did in the days of previous Tory rule. If that happens, perhaps the Government will ensure that the price of clogs goes up to £3 a pair.
The sum of £3 is a large one for working people to pay. It ought also to be remembered—it has been mentioned already, but I do not think the Minister realises it—that cripples who wear surgical boots need to have them repaired far more frequently than do normal people and, in addition, such boots wear out and need replacing more quickly than normal boots. Very often cripples wearing surgical boots have also to wear iron callipers, and the friction of the calliper on the leather quickly causes deterioration of the footwear.
This legislation, which I can only describe as brutal, will hit the weak and the deformed, and I am very concerned about the fact that many people in need of surgical boots will be denied them for financial reasons. It is all wrong. It is unjust and uncharitable. It is devoid of social justice.
The next item selected by the Minister for a charge is abdominal belts. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that


there are a number of grave surgical conditions which, if not controlled properly by means of abdominal belts, can lead to serious complications.
The fourth item upon which a charge is to fall is elastic hosiery. For what condition is elastic hosiery usually prescribed? It is needed for varicose veins. In what type of patient are varicose veins usually found. They are usually found among women who have borne children.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite like to boast about their gallantry. They say that, when the ship is in danger, women and children should be the first to be saved. Those are fine words. But what of their deeds? The moment that the financial ship begins to rock, the mothers are selected as the first to leave the ship, and they are thrown overboard.
The wretched charge on elastic hosiery is a penalty on motherhood. Some of my women constituents in Batley and Morley who have brought up families will be unable to afford this heartless charge. Their varicose veins will become worse and there will be a danger of their developing varicose ulcers and other complications. The very people whom we should honour, respect and help will be hit and hurt by this callous legislation.

Miss Jennie Lee: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), with his professional knowledge as well as his public experience, went out of his way to talk as he did about wigs. It has been fun to the more vulgar elements opposite, and to the more vulgar elements in the Press which supports them, to single out the provision of free wigs for special attack. They might keep in mind that when many of our Allies on the Continent wanted to show their contempt of the kind of women who consorted with Fascist soldiers they did so by shaving their heads. They singled them out in that way to shame and humiliate them.
It is going against all knowledge of psychology—we do not need to be trained doctors to know this—and it is stupid, cruel and silly to produce this kind of legislation, which hon. Members would not support if they thought that their own women, or even men in certain instances—we are agreed that there is a special woman's angle to this matter—

would not be able to make private provision for these things.
8.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) deserves to be congratulated for his candour in putting on record in HANSARD that he believes in charges. Very close to the heart of this problem is the fact that those who can afford the charges are not affected in the least by any of the matters we are considering. They can procure them through their private purse. But if we believe in charges, we have got to look carefully to see whether we are really trying to economise, whether we are trying to get fresh legislation or whether we are not doing in the most contemptible fashion what we on this side of the Committee are often accused of doing, promoting a mean and malicious form of class warfare.
There can be no doubt at all about the people affected by these charges. If Members opposite were as candid as the hon. Member for Enfield, West, they would go further and say that they did not believe in partial charges for these appliances at all, but would like to see the full market value paid. Further, they would like to see the maximum number of middlemen put their charge on these appliances and they would like to see other additional charges piling up.
One of the most remarkable insights into how the Tory mind works is seen in the ingenuity which has been exerted to save £250,000 here or at the very most £1 million or £2 million, for it is done by the piling up of human humiliation and misery. Quite clearly, many hon. Members opposite, from their own business experience, know that there are other ways of saving a great deal more money.
Aural aids are one of the items we want specifically excluded from the charges. I know that we have been given certain generalised promises, and some hon. Members opposite may think we are being unduly suspicious in respect of the exemptions which we want laid down in legislative form, but it is not just the last Election that we have in mind; it is the last century, and much more. It is no just red meat, the cost of living and the food subsidies, but the specific pledges given in public by men who were considered by many to be honourable, and which were then broken.
While our personal recollections may not go back a century, those of some of us go back quite a bit. The first thing that I remember when I became interested in politics was a Tory Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin, telling our people in the coalfields in 1926—and it was more than the people in the coalfields for it included the organised workers who were supporting the miners—that if they went back to work there would be no victimisation. Nothing could have been more definite and more widely published. Many people believed it.
Hon. Members opposite must realise that we have got substantial ground for our arguments, for we are not, as has already been said, prepared to trust the Tories. We believe that we can depend upon what we get in legislation here.
I am concerned very much about the problem of the cost of the services and equipment to sick people in our hospitals. It is a very exciting field of research. I suggest to some of out pamphleteers opposite that if they want a really good subject they might investigate item by item the appliances provided in our hospitals, and see how many millions of pounds could be saved by cutting out unnecessary waste and by doing for all the items mentioned in our Amendments what has been done in the most dramatic way in the case of hearing aids.
The Committee may be aware that on that one item alone vast sums were saved, partly to the Government and partly to individual sufferers. I notice that up to September, 1951, we had supplied 152,000 bearing aids. A great many more are required. At one time those hearing aids cost roughly £40 when bought on the open market. I think that is a conservative estimate. Many of them cost a great deal more.
If all people who had required hearing aids had gone to the market and bought them, they would have paid for them more than £6 million. Obviously many people would simply have done without them. The Government stepped in, and by bringing the technicians and the medical specialists together and doing a serious job of bulk supplying, which is possible when the supply is free, they were able to save the country a great deal of money.
I am extremely suspicious of even a small charge on any of these appliances. It does more than some hon. Members opposite realise. It tempts people to pay more than that charge in order to buy an inferior article on the instalment plan. When some hon. Members opposite talk in terms of: "Oh, just a pound," or "Just a pound or two," they cannot conceive that getting that pound, or that pound or two, can be as remote an objective to many working-class budgets as a journey to the moon. That is true even in a period of good employment when the family are growing up.
I have known working-class matrons who have required elastic stockings and surgical corsets who could not get into the habit of spending money on themselves. They would remember that their households needed new carpets, new bath towels or something for the children. It became financially impossible for the mother to put herself into the priority queue, even with father in full employment and the children beginning to help. There is more than one instance within my personal knowledge where the mother simply could not come round to spending money on herself.
In those circumstances, several things happen. One of them is the tendency to go to quacks. The women gets the wrong kind of corset, paying more to someone who comes to the door. That seems easier to them than going through a complicated process of visits. They get the corsets on the instalment system—or they simply do without. Elastic hosiery provides an instance of how thousands of women will let themselves go to pieces. They will do without that kind of aid because they do not regard it as a matter of life and death.
If there is anything that has given happiness to me, and should have given pleasure and pride to all hon. Members, it has been to go into some of the side streets of our cities, to go into our mining villages, and at last to see women in their middle years and older years carrying themselves in a way that at one time was the privilege of only well-to-do women.
Normally, a woman who has borne a large family, or whose health has not been good, becomes discouraged by a combination of poverty and ill health. What a wonderful thing it was when we reached that state of civilisation in this


country when we were concerned about elastic stockings, when we were concerned about surgical stockings, when we were concerned about wigs and so on. And now we are asked to turn back the clock.
I hope, even at this late stage, that some of the things which have been said will leave their influence on hon. Members opposite. We on this side of the Committee have to be charitable. We know that there may be a lack of imagination and a lack of experience on all sides.
I was bitterly ashamed when my own party was responsible for charging for teeth and spectacles. We shall not accept that. I believe it was due to lack of imagination and to lack of experience. I do not believe that those Members of my own party who were responsible for those, silly, trivial charges would now impose them. I think they know better. But if we deviated to a small extent, if we to a minor extent blotted a Service which means so much to us, it is no reason why hon. Members opposite should try to carry those sins a bit further.
The party opposite has shown a great desire to imitate us. Hon. Members opposite have quoted at great length, if not with great exactitude, what happened in 1949 and 1951 and at other times. I invite them to imitate the best we have done, not the mistakes we have made. If they will do that, they will find themselves busy for a very long time indeed. If they do that, we can invite them to come to this side of the Committee because, as has been said already, there seems to be something innate in the Tory Party which makes it introduce this kind of legislation.
I do not want to give it any hints for the survival of the Tory Party, but hon. Members opposite would have been much cleverer politicians—humanity and any other decent reasons apart—if they had had the common sense, particularly on this Measure, to have carried on the best that has been done by this side of the Committee instead of trying to cover themselves by one or two of our mistakes.

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) said one thing which I appreciated very much, namely, that we ought all to be charitable,

because, listening to the speeches I have heard from the other side of the Committee during the afternoon, that was the quality which was conspicuous by its absence. Certainly, the adjectives and, one might say, the ruderies, which have been directed at the Government and at my Friends on this bench and behind me, have been very severe. We have had a general review, almost a Second Reading debate, for the third time on this Amendment. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is a lot more yet."]
The Amendment deals with a short point, and it is to that that I propose to reply. What the group of Amendments seeks to do is something which is often attempted in Bills; it is nothing new. Very often an attempt is made to put in one exception or another, and the risk which the Committee always runs, should it carry out that purpose, is that it may very well, by inserting a number of things, omit and, therefore, make more vulnerable something which it really would like to have inserted had it thought of it at the time.
9.0 p.m.
Our minds are working in an entirely different direction. We think that it is better not to have any of these exceptions but to rely, as I have said earlier, on the regulatory power which is given in the Bill; and in the Bill to take the powers, as the Clause provides, to make the regulations. Then, the regulations afterwards have to come before Parliament and can be discussed.
In anticipation of that, I made it quite clear what our intentions are and, therefore, the impassioned speech, for example, of the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons), to which we all listened, I am sure, with emotion, was completely off the mark when he said most emphatically that we must all demand that artificial limbs should be free issue for all pensioners—war pensioners and the rest.
None of that is in issue at all. [Interruption.] I have made it clear every time I have spoken that we are not dealing with that at all. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members would listen to my argument for five minutes, instead of at once interrupting. I said that there were two ways of dealing with this matter. Either one excludes, or tries to exclude, everything, or else one depends on the regulatory power. We are depending on


the regulatory power. I have already told the House—on Second Reading and in Committee today—twice exactly what we intend to do.

Mr. G. Lindgren: How can we believe the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Hamilton: How can we trust him?

Mr. Crookshank: A little of the charitable feeling which the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) suggested should be in hon. Members' minds.
The only other point I was about to make at this stage—because I have made these points before—is that I very much resented the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), saying that we were doing all this gleefully. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course you are."] I very much resented that. The hon. Member knows that it is quite untrue and that I said exactly the opposite, not only in the debate in January but also on the Second Reading debate. I pointed out that it was an extremely distasteful thing for anybody to have to put on charges, just as it was for the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) when he took the power to do it.

Mr. Baird: rose—

Mr. Crookshank: I cannot give way. I am answering the hon. Gentleman when he said that we did this gleefully. That is not true. I have gone out of my way to express myself on two previous occasions, and I endorse what I said then.

Mr. Baird: rose—

Mr. Crookshank: It is, of course, a matter for regret that our financial situation should be such that we should have to introduce measures of this kind.

Mr. Baird: On a point of order.

The Chairman: Before the hon. Gentleman puts his point of order to me, I hope he really believes that it is a point of order.

Mr. Baird: Of course I do, Sir Charles. I should like your guidance. This is a Committee of the whole House. Is it not usual when one Member attacks another to make way and to let him reply and defend himself?

The Chairman: There is no point of order about that.

Mr. Crookshank: As for any attack, it was the other way round. It was the hon. Gentleman who was saying that I was gleeful about this.

Mr. Baird: The right hon. Gentleman looked gleeful.

Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman is always a smiling figure and we appreciate seeing him, but he must not try to make statements of that kind, because I repudiate them entirely. I have done so before and I do it again.

Mr. Baird: Let me explain my statement.

Mr. Crookshank: No. The hon. Gentleman has tried a point of order but that was no good, and it is no good his trying to explain himself. He has said it, and it is not true.

Mr. Baird: Why are hon. Members behind you laughing?

Mr. Crookshank: There is one other point I should like to stress, because so much has been said—by the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock, among others—about what a terrible burden these charges would be upon people. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are."] If they are, we have made it quite clear that any case of hardship will be entitled to relief, just in the same way as last year, under the spectacles and dentures Regulations, hardship cases could be relieved.
We are carrying on in exactly the same way and, therefore, it is no more right to make these charges and accusations about these proposals than it would have been for hon. Members opposite to have made them about their proposals. I am unable to accept the Amendment, because, as I said at the beginning of my remarks we have taken the contrary view as being the better way of drafting the Bill, and I suggest that we should be allowed to proceed.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 267.

Division No. 68.]
AYES
[9.7 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Alport, C. J. M.
Fort, R.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Foster, John
McKibbin, A. J.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lansdale)
Maclay, Hon. John


Arbuthnot, John
Gage, C. H.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gammons, L. D.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Baker, P. A. D.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Baldwin, A. E.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Banks, Col. C.
Godber, J. B.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Barber, A. P. L.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Barlow, Sir John
Gough, C. F. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Baxter, A. B.
Gower, H. R.
Marples, A. E.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Graham, Sir Fergus
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Grimond, J.
Maude, Angus


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maudling, R.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Harden, J. R. E.
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Mellor, Sir John


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Molson, A. H. E.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harvey, Lt.-Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Birch, Nigel
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Bishop, F. P.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Black, C. W.
Hay, John
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bossom, A. C.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Nicholls, Harmar


Bowen, E. R.
Heath, Edward
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Braine, B. R.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nutting, Anthony


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Oakshott, H. D.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Odey, G. W.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hollis, M. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Ormsby-Gore. Hon. W. D.


Bullard, D. G.
Hope, Lord John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hopkinson, Henry
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Osborne, C.


Burden, F. F. A.
Horobin, I. M.
Partridge, E.


Butcher, H. W.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Carson, Hon. E.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hurd, A. R.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Channon, H.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Pitman, I. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hutchison, James (Sootstoun)
Powell, J. Enoch


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Cole, Norman
Jennings, R.
Profumo, J. D.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Raikes, H. V.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kaberry, D.
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)


Cranbourne, Viscount
Keeling, Sir Edward
Robertson, Sir David


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Robson-Brown, W.


Crouch, R. F.
Lambton, Viscount
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roper, Sir Harold


Crowder, Petra (Ruislip—Northwood)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cuthbert, W. N.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Russell, R. S.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Leather, E. H. C.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Davidson, Viscountess
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Deedes, W. F.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lindsay, Martin
Scott, R. Donald


Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.
Linstead, H. N.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Donner, P. W.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Shepherd, William


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Drewe, C.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Longden, Gilbert (Harts, S.W.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Duthie, W. S.
Law, A. R. W.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Snadden, W. McN.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)
Soames, Capt. C.


Erroll, F. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spearman, A. C. M.


Fell, A.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Speir, R. M.


Finlay, Graeme
McAdden, S. J.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
McCallum, Major D.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)







Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Watkinson, H. A.


Stevens, G. P.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Wellwood, W.


Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Tilney, John
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Storey, S.
Touche, G. C.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Turner, H. F. L.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Turton, R. H.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Summers, G. S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Wills, G.


Sutcliffe, H.
Vane, W. M. F.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Wood, Hon. R.


Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Vosper, D. F.
York, C.


Teeling, W.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)



Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Redmayne.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
King, Dr. H. M.


Adams, Richard
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Kinley, J.


Albu, A. H.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Ewart, R.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Fernyhough, E.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Field, W. J.
Lewis, Arthur


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Fienburgh, W.
Lindgren, G. S.


Awbery, S. S.
Finch, H. J.
Lipton, Lt-Col. M.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Logan, D. G.


Baird, J.
Follick, M.
MacColl, J. E.


Balfour, A.
Foot, M. M.
McGhee, H. G.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Forman, J. C.
McInnes, J.


Bence, C. R.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bann, Wedgwood
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McLeavy, F.


Benson, G.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Beswick, F.
Gibson, C. W.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Glanville, James
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bing, G. H. C.
Gooch, E. G.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Blackburn, F.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Blenkinsop, A.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Blyton, W. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Boardman, H.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Manuel, A. C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Grey, C. F.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bowden, H. W.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mayhew, C. P.


Bowles, F. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mellish, R. J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Messer, F.


Brockway, A. F.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mikardo, Ian


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Cone Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Monslow, W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hamilton, W. W.
Moody, A. S.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hannan, W.
Morley, R.


Burke, W. A.
Hardy, E. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hargreaves, A.
Mort, D. L.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Moyle, A.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hastings, S.
Mulley, F. W.


Carmichael, J.
Hayman, F. H.
Murray, J. D.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Nally, W.


Champion, A. J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Chapman, W. D.
Herbison, Miss M.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
O'Brien, T.


Clunie, J.
Hobson, C. R.
Oldfield, W. H.


Cooks, F. S.
Holman, P.
Oliver, G. H.


Coldrick, W.
Houghton, Douglas
Orbach, M.


Collick, P. H.
Hoy, J. H.
Oswald, T.


Cook, T. F.
Hubbard, T. F.
Padley, W. E.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paget, R. T.


Cove, W. G.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pannell, Charles


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pargiter, G. A.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Parker, J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Paton, J.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Peart, T. F.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Janner, B.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Poole, C. C.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Popplewell, E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Porter, G.


Deer, G.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Delargy, H. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Dodds, N. N.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Proctor, W. T.


Donnelly, D. L.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pryde, D. J.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rankin, John


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reeves, J.


Edelman, M.
Keenan, W.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Kenyon, C.
Reid, William (Camleohie)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rhodes, H.







Richards, R.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stross, Dr. Barnett
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Roberts, Geronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Swingler, S. T.
Wigg, George


Ross, William
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Royle, C.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wilkins, W. A.


Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Willey Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Williams, David (Neath)


Short, E. W.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Timmons, J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Slater, J.
Tomney, F.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Snow, J. W.
Viant, S. P.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Sorensen, R. W.
Watkins, T. E.
Wyatt, W. L.


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford C.)
Yates, V. F.


Sparks, J. A.
Weitzman, D.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Steele, T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)



Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
West, D. G.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bowles.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put accordingly, and negatived.

Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 9, at end, insert "other than wigs."—[Dr. Stross.]

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 292.

Division No. 69.]
AYES
[9.17 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Adams, Richard
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hastings, S.


Albu, A. H.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hayman, F. H.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Herbison, Miss M.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Awbery, S. S.
Deer, G.
Hobson, C. R.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Delargy, H. J.
Holman, P.


Baird, J.
Dodds, N. N.
Houghton, Douglas


Balfour, A.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hoy, J. H.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hubbard, T. F.


Bence, C. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Benn, Wedgwood
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Benson, G.
Edelman, M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Beswick, F.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Bing, G. H. C.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Blackburn, F.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Blenkinsop, A.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Ewart, R.
Janner, B.


Boardman, H.
Fernyhough, E.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Field, W. J.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Bowden, H. W.
Fienburgh, W.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Bowles, F. G.
Finch, H. J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Brockway, A. F.
Follick, M.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Foot, M. M.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Forman, J. C.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Burke, W. A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Keenan, W.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Gibson, C. W.
Kenyon, C.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Glanville, James
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Callaghan, L. J.
Gooch, E. G.
King, Dr. H. M.


Carmichael, J.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Kinley, J.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Champion, A. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Chapman, W. D.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Grey, C. F.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Clunie, J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lewis, Arthur


Cocks, F. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Lindgren, G. S.


Coldrick, W.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Collick, P. H.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Logan, D. G.


Cook, T. F.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
MacColl, J. E.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
McGhee, H. G.


Cove, W. G.
Hamilton, W. W.
McInnes, J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hannan, W.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hardy, E. A.
McLeavy, F.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hargreaves, A.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)




McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Popplewell, E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Porter, G.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Proctor, W. T.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Pryde, D. J.
Thomas, Iorwarth (Rhondda, W.)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Manuel, A. C.
Rankin, John
Thurtle, Ernest


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Reeves, J.
Timmons, J.


Mayhew, C. P.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Tomney, F.


Mellish, R. J.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Messer, F.
Rhodes, H.
Viant, S. P.


Mikardo, Ian
Richards, R.
Wallace, H. W.


Mitchison, G. R.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Watkins, T. E.


Monslow, W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Moody, A. S.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Weitzman, D.


Morley, R.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Ross, William
Wells, William (Walsall)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Royle, C.
West, D. G.


Mort, D. L.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Moyle, A.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mulley, F. W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Murray, J. D.
Short, E. W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Nally, W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wigg, George


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Wilcock, Group Captain C. A. B.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wilkins, W. A.


O'Brien, T.
Slater, J.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Oldfield, W. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Orbach, M.
Snow, J. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Oswald, T.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Padley, W. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Paget, R. T.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Steele, T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Pannell, Charles
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Pargiter, G. A.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wyatt, W. L.


Parker, J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Yates, V. F.


Paton, J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Peart, T. F.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.



Plummer, Sir Leslie
Swingler, S. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Poole, C. C.
Sylvester, G. O.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Fisher, Nigel


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Alpert, C. J. M.
Burden, F. F. A.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Butcher, H. W.
Fort, R.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Foster, John


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Arbuthnot, John
Carson, Hon. E.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lansdale)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cary, Sir Robert
Gage, C. H.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Channon, H.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Baker, P. A. D.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Gammons, L. D.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Banks, Col. C.
Cole, Norman
Glyn, Sir Ralph


Barber, A. P. L.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Godber, J. B.


Barlow, Sir John
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Baxter, A. B.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gough, C. F. H.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gower, H. R.


Beamish, Mai. Tufton
Cranborne, Viscount
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Grimond, J.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Crouch, R. F.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Harden, J. R. E.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Birch, Nigel
Davidson, Viscountess
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bishop, F. P.
Deedes, W. F.
Harvey, Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfield)


Black, C. W.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dedds-Parker, A. D.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Bossom, A. C.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hay, John


Bowen, E. R.
Donner, P. W.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Heald, Sir Lionel


Boyle, Sir Edward
Draws, C.
Heath, Edward


Brains, B. R.
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Duthie, W. S.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Brooman-White, R. C.
Erroll, F. J.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Fell, A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bullard, D. G.
Finlay, Graeme
Hollis, M. C.







Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Scott-Miller, Comdr. R.


Hope, Lord John
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Shepherd, William


Hopkinson, Henry
Marples, A. E.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Horobin, I. M.
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Maude, Angus
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Maudling, R.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Maydon, Lt-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Snadden, W. McN.


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Soames, Capt. C.


Hurd, A. R.
Mellor, Sir John
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Molson, A. H. E.
Speir, R. M.


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Jennings, R.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Stevens, G. P.


Johnson, Eric (Blackleg)
Nabarre, G. D. N.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Nicholls, Harmer
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Kaberry, D.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Storey, S.


Keeling, Sir Edward
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Summers, G. S.


Lambton, Viscount
Nutting, Anthony
Sutcliffe, H.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Oakshott, H. D.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Odey, G. W.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Teeling, W.


Leather, E. H. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Osborne, C.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Lindsay, Martin
Partridge, E.
Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Linstead, H. N.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Tilney, John


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pete, Brig. C. H. M.
Touche, G. C.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Turner, H. F. L.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Turton, R. H.


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Pitman, I. J.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Low, A. R. W.
Powell, J. Enoch
Vane, W. M. F.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Vosper, D. F.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Profume, J. D.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Raikes, H. V.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


McAdden, S. J.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


McCallum, Major D.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Watkinson, H. A.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Roberts, Peter (Healey)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Robertson, Sir David
Wellwood, W.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


McKibbin, A. J.
Robson-Brown, W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Maclay, Hon. John
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Russell, R. S.
Wills, G.


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wood, Hon. R.


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
York, C.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)



Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Scott, R. Donald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Studholme and Mr. Redmayne.

Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 9, at end insert "other than hearing aids."—[Mr. Hastings.]

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 9, at end, insert:

other than surgical boots and shoes."—[Dr. Broughton.]

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 295.

Division No. 70.]
AYES
[9.28 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Benn, Wedgwood
Brockway, A. F.


Adams, Richard
Benson, G.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)


Albu, A. H.
Beswick, F.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Bing, G. H. C.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Blackburn, F.
Burke, W. A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Blenkinsop, A.
Burton, Miss F. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Blyton, W. R.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Boardman, H.
Callaghan, L. J.


Baird, J.
Bottemley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Carmichael, J.


Balfour, A.
Bowden, H. W.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Bowles, F. G.
Champion, A. J.


Bence, C. R.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Chapman, W. D.




Chetwynd, G. R.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Proctor, W. T.


Clunie, J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pryde, D. J.


Cocks, F. S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Coldrick, W.
Janner, B.
Rankin, John


Collick, P. H.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Reeves, J.


Cook, T. F.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stetchford)
Rhodes, H.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Richards, R.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Ross, William


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Keenan, W.
Royle, C.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Kenyon, C.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
King, Dr. H. M.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Deer, G.
Kinley, J.
Short, E. W.


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Donnelly, D. L.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Slater, J.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lewis, Arthur
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Edelman, M.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Snow, J. W.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacColl, J. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McGhee, H. G.
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
McInnes, J.
Steele, T.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Ewart, R.
McLeavy, F.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Fernyhough, E.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Field, W. J.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Fienburgh, W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Finch, H. J.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swingler, S. T.


Follick, M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Foot, M. M.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Forman, J. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Gibson, C. W.
Messer, F.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Glanville, James
Mikardo, Ian
Thurtle, Ernest


Gooch, E. G.
Mitchison, G. R.
Timmons, J.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Monslow, W.
Tomney, F.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Moody, A. S.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Morley, R.
Viant, S. P.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wallace,, H. W.


Grey, C. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Watkins, T. E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mort, D. L.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford C.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moyle, A.
Weitzman, D.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mulley, F. W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Murray, J. D.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Nally, W.
West, D. G.


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Hamilton, W. W.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hannan, W.
O'Brien, T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Hardy, E. A.
Oldfield, W. H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hargreaves, A.
Oliver, G. H.
Wigg, George


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Orbach, M.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Hastings, S.
Oswald, T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hayman, F. H.
Padley, W. E.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Paget, R. T.
Willey, Octavlus (Cleveland)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Williams, David (Neath)


Herbison, Miss M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pannell, Charles
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hobson, C. R.
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Holman, P.
Parker, J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Houghton, Douglas
Paton, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huron)


Hoy, J. H.
Peart, T. F.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Hubbard, T. F.
Plummer, Sir Leslis
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Poole, C. C.
Wyatt, W. L.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Popplewell, E.
Yates, V. F.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Porter, G.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)



Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Baker, P. A. D.


Alport, C. J. M.
Arbuthnot, John
Baldock, Lt-Cmdr. J. M.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Baldwin, A. E.







Banks, Col. C.
Gower, H. R.
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Barber, A. P. L.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maude, Angus


Barlow, Sir John
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maudling, R.


Baxter, A. B.
Grimond, J.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mellor, Sir John


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harden, J. R. E.
Molson, A. H. E.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nicholls, Harmar


Birch, Nigel
Hay, John
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Bishop, F. P.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Black, C. W.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Boothby, R. J. C.
Heath, Edward
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Bossom, A. C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bowen, E. R.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nutting, Anthony


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Oakshott, H. D.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Odey, G. W.


Braine, B. R.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hollis, M. C.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Osborne, C.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hope, Lord John
Partridge, E.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hopkinson, Henry
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.


Bullard, D. G.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Horobin, I. M.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Butcher, H. W.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Pitman, I. J.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Powell, J. Enoch


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hurd, A. R.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Carson, Hon. E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig O. L.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Profume, J. D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hyde, Lt. Col. H. M.
Raikes, H. V.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Redmayne, M.


Cole, Norman
Jennings, R.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Robertson, Sir David


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kaberry, D.
Robson-Brown, W.


Cranborne, Viscount
Keeling, Sir Edward
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Roper, Sir Harold


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Crouch, R. F.
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, R. S.


Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Crowder, Petra (Ruislip—Northwood)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cuthbert, W. N.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Leather, E. H. C.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Davidson, Viscountess
Legge-Bourke, Maj E. A. H.
Scott, R. Donald


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Deedes, W. F.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Shepherd, William


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lindsay, Martin
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Linstead, H. N.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Donner, P. W.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Drewe, C.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Snadden, W. McN.


Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Soames, Capt. C.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Low, A. R. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Speir, R. M.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Erroll, F. J.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Fell, A.
McAdden, S. J.
Stevens, G. P.


Finlay, Graeme
McCallum, Major D.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McKibbin, A. J.
Storey, S.


Fort, R.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Foster, John
Maclay, Hon. John
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Summers, G. S.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Gage, C. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Gammans, L. D.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Teeling, W.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Godber, J. B.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marples, A. E.
Thorneycroft, F. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Gough, C. F. H.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.







Tilney, John
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Touche, G. C.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Wills, G.


Turner, H. F. L.
Watkinson, H. A.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Turton, R. H.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)
Wood, Hon. R.


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Wellwood, W.
York, C.


Vane, W. M. F.
White, Baker (Canterbury)



Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Vosper, D. F.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Brigadier Mackeson


Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
and Mr. Studholme.

Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 9, at end, insert "other than elastic hosiery."—[Dr. Stross.]

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 294.

Division No. 71.]
AYES
[9.39 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Kenyon, C.


Adams, Richard
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Albu, A. H.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
King, Dr. H. M.


Allen, Arthur (Boswerth)
Ewart, R.
Kinley, J.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Field, Capt. W. J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Fienburgh, W.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Awbery, S. S.
Finch, H. J.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Lewis, Arthur


Baird, J.
Follick, M.
Lindgren, G. S.


Balfour, A.
Foot, M. M.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Forman, J. C.
Logan, D. G.


Bence, C. R.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacColl, J. E.


Benn, Wedgwood
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McGhee, H. G.


Benson, G.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McInnes, J.


Beswick, F.
Gibson, C. W.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Glanville, James
McLeavy, F.


Bing, G. H. C.
Gooch, E. G.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Blackburn, F.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Blyton, W. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Boardman, H.
Granfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Grey, C. F.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bowles, F. G.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Manuel, A. C.


Brockway, A. F.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mayhew, C. P.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mellish, R. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Messer, F.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hamilton, W. W.
Mikarde, Ian


Burke, W. A.
Hannan, W.
Mitchison, G. R.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hardy, E. A.
Monslow, W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hargreaves, A.
Moody, A. S.


Callaghan, L. J.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Morley, R.


Carmichael, J.
Hastings, S.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hayman, F. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Champion, A. J.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. F.)
Mort, D. L.


Chapman, W. D.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Moyle, A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mulley, F. W.


Clunie, J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Murray, J. D.


Cocks, F. S.
Hobson, C. R.
Nally, W.


Coldrick, W.
Holman, P.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Collick, P. H.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Cook, T. F.
Houghton, Douglas
O'Brien, T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hoy, J. H.
Oldfield, W. H.


Cove, W. G.
Hubbard, T. F.
Oliver, G. H.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Orbach, M.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oswald, T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Padley, W. E.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paget, R. T.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pannell, Charles


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pargiter, G. A.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Janner, B.
Parker, J.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Paton, J.


Deer, G.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Pearson, A.


Delargy, H. J.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Peart, T. F.


Dodds, N. N.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Donnelly, D. L.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Poole, C. C.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Porter, G.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Edelman, M.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Proctor, W. T.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pryde, D. J.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Keenan, W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.




Rankin, John
Sparks, J. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Reeves, J.
Steele, T.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
West, D. G.


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Rhodes, H.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Richards, R.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wigg, G. E. C.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Swingler, S. T.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilkins, W. A.


Ross, William
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Royle, C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Williams, David (Neath)


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Short, E. W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Timmons, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Tomney, F.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Slater, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Viant, S. P.
Wyatt, W. L.


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Wallace, H. W.
Yates, V. F.


Snow, J. W.
Watkins, T. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Sorensen, R. W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)



Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Weitzman, D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Bowden and Mr. Popplewell.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Cranborne, Viscount
Heath, Edward


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Alport, C. J. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Crouch, R. F.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Arbuthnot, John
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Davidson, Viscountess
Hollis, M. C.


Baker, P. A. D.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Deedes, W. F.
Hope, Lord John


Baldwin, A. E.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hopkinson, Henry


Banks, Col. C.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Barber, A. P. L.
Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.
Horobin, I. M.


Barlow, Sir John
Donner, P. W.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Baxter, A. B.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Drewe, C.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hurd, A. R.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Duthie, W. S.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Glark (E'b'rgh W.)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Erroll, F. J.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Fell, A.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Finlay, Graeme
Jennings, R.


Birch, Nigel
Fisher, Nigel
Johnson, Eric (Blackleg)


Bishop, F. P.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Black, C. W.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fort, R.
Kaberry, D.


Bossom, A. C.
Foster, John
Keeling, Sir Edward


Bowen, E. R.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lambert, Hon. G.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gage, C. H.
Lambton, Viscount


Braine, B. R.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gammons, L. D.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Leather, E. H. C.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Godber, J. B.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Bullard, D. G.
Gough, C. F. H.
Lindsay, Martin


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gower, H. R.
Linstead, H. N.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Graham, Sir Fegus
Llewellyn, D. T.


Burden, F. F. A.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Butcher, H. W.
Grimond, J.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)


Carson, Hon. E.
Harden, J. R. E.
Low, A. R. W.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Channon, H.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
McAdden, S. J.


Cole, Norman
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
McCallum, Major D.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hay, John
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Heald, Sir Lionel
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.







McKibbin, A. J.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Maclay, Hon. John
Peyton, J. W. W.
Storey, S.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


McLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Pitman, I. J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Powell, J. Enoch
Studholme, H. G.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Summers, G. S.


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Sutcliffe, H.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Profumo, J. D.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Raikes, H. V.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Teeling, W.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Redmayne, M.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Marples, A. E.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Robertson, Sir David
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Maude, Angus
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Maudling, R.
Robson-Brown, W.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Mayden, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Tilney, John


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Roper, Sir Harold
Touche, G. C.


Mellor, Sir John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Turner, H. F. L.


Molson, A. H. E.
Russell, R. S.
Turton, R. H.


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Vane, W. M. F.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Scott, R. Donald
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Nicholls, Harmer
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Shepherd, William
Watkinson, H. A.


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Wellwood, W.


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Nutting, Anthony
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Oakshott, H. D.
Snadden, W. McN.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Odey, G. W.
Soames, Capt. C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Spearman, A. C. M.
Wills, G.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Speir, R. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
York, C.


Osborne, C.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard



Partridge, E.
Stevens, G. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Major Conant and Mr. Vosper.

Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 9, at end, insert "other than abdominal belts."—[Dr. Stross.]

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 294.

Division No. 72.]
AYES
[9.51 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Burton, Miss F. E.
Edelman, M.


Adams, Richard
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Edwards, John (Brighouse)


Albu, A. H.
Callaghan, L. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Carmichael, J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Champion, A. J.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Chapman, W. D.
Ewart, R.


Awbery, S. S.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Fernyhough, E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Clunie, J.
Field, Capt. W. J.


Baird, J.
Cocks, F. S.
Fienburgh, W.


Balfour, A.
Coldrick, W.
Finch, H. J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Collick, P. H.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Bence, C. R.
Cook, T. F.
Follick, M.


Benn, Wedgwood
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Foot, M. M.


Benson, G.
Cove, W. G.
Forman, J. C.


Beswick, F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Crosland, C. A. R.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Bing, G. H. C.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Blackburn, F.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Gibson, C. W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Glanville, James


Blyton, W. R.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Gooch, E. G.


Boardman, H.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Greenwood, Anthony (Ressendale)


Bowden, H. W.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)


Bowles, F. G.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Deer, G.
Grey, C. F.


Brockway, A. F.
Delargy, H. J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Dodds, N. N.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Donnelly, D. L.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Volley)


Burke, W. A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)




Hamilton, W. W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Short, E. W.


Hannan, W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Hardy, E. A.
Manuel, A. C.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Hargreaves, A.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mayhew, C. P.
Slater, J.


Hastings, S.
Mellish, R. J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hayman, F. H.
Messer, F.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Mikardo, Ian
Snow, J. W.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Mitchison, G. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Herbison, Miss M.
Monslow, W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Moody, A. S.
Sparks, J. A.


Hobson, C. R.
Morley, R.
Steele, T.


Holman, P.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Houghton, Douglas
Mort, D. L.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hoy, J. H.
Moyle, A.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hubbard, T. F.
Mulley, F. W.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Murray, J. D.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Nally, W.
Swingler, S. T.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Sylvester, G. O.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
O'Brien, T.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oldfield, W. H.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Oliver, G. H.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Orbach, M.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Janner, B.
Oswald, T.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Padley, W. E.
Thurtle, Ernest


Jeger, George (Goole)
Paget, R. T.
Timmons, J.


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Tomney, F.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pannell, Charles
Viant, S. P.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wallace, H. W.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Parker, J.
Watkins, T. E.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Paton, J.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pearson, A.
Weitzman, D.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Peart, T. F.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Keenan, W.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wells, William (Walsall)


Kenyon, C.
Poole, C. C.
West, D. G.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Popplewell, E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


King, Dr. H. M.
Porter, G.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Kinley, J.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Proctor, W. T.
Wigg, G. E. C.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pryde, D. J.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Lewis, Arthur
Rankin, John
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Lindgren, G. S.
Reeves, J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Logan, D. G.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


MacColl, J. E.
Rhodes, H.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


McGhee, H. G.
Richards, R.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


McInnes, J.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


McLeavy, F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wyatt, W. L.


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Ross, William
Yates, V. F.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Shackleton, E. A. A.



Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Royle.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Bennett, William (Woodside)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Carson, Hon. E.


Alport, C. J. M.
Birch, Nigel
Cary, Sir Robert


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bishop, F. P.
Channon, H.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Black, C. W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Arbuthnot, John
Bossom, A. C.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Bowen, E. R.
Cole, Norman


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Baker, P. A. D.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Braine, B. R.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Baldwin, A. E.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Cranborne, Viscount


Banks, Col. C.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Barber, A. P. L.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Barlow, Sir John
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Crouch, R. F.


Baxter, A. B.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Crowder, Petra (Ruislip—Northwood)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Bullard, D. G.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Bullock, Capt. M.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Davidson, Viscountess


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Burden, F. F. A.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbasten)
Butcher, H. W.
Deedes, W. F.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Digby, S. Wingfield







Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Profumo, J. D.


Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.
Lambton, Viscount
Raikes, H. V.


Donner, P. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Drewe, C.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Healey)


Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Leather, E. H. C.
Robertson, Sir David


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Duthie, W. S.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Robson-Brown, W.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lindsay, Martin
Roper, Sir Harold


Erroll, F. J.
Linstead, H. N.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fell, A.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Russell, R. S.


Finlay, Graeme
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Fort, R.
Low, A. R. W.
Scott, R. Donald


Foster, John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Scott-Miller, Comdr. R.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)
Shepherd, William


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Gage, C. H.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McAdden, S. J.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Gammans, L. D.
McCallum, Major D.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Snadden, W. McN.


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Soames, Capt. C.


Godber, J. B.
McKibbin, A. J.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Speir, R. M.


Gough, C. F. H.
Maclay, Hon. John
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Gower, H. R.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Gridley, Sir Arnold
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Stevens, G. P.


Grimond, J.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Harden, J. R. E.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Storey, S.


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Harrison, Cot. J. H. (Eye)
Marples, A. E.
Studholme, H. G.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Summers, G. S.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Sutcliffe, H.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Hay, John
Maudling, R.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Teeling, W.


Heald, Sir Lionel
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Heath, Edward
Mellor, Sir John
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Molson, A. H. E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Tilney, John


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Touche, G. C.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nicholls, Harmer
Turner, H. F. L.


Hollis, M. C.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Turton, R. H.


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hope, Lord John
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hopkinson, Henry
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Vosper, D. F.


Horobin, I. M.
Nutting, Anthony
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Oakshott, H. D.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Odey, G. W.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hurd, A. R.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wellwood, W.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Osborne, C.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Partridge, E.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Jennings, R.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Wills, G.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wood, Hon. R.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Pitman, I. J.
York, C.


Kaberry, D.
Powell, J. Enoch



Keeling, Sir Edward
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Major Conant and Mr. Redmayne.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arthur Colegate): Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we take the next two Amendments together, since they deal with more or less the same point—in page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no such charge for an appliance shall exceed one quarter of its cost to the Minister or the sum of one pound whichever be the less.
and in line 9, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no such charge for drugs or medicine shall exceed sixpence.

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no such charge for an appliance shall exceed one quarter of its cost to the Minister or the sum of one pound whichever be the less.
The Committee will not mind me reminding them that we are dealing with the Bill and not with any statement which has been made by the Minister. So although the Minister may have told us on Second Reading what he proposes to put in his Regulations, we have to deal with the Bill as it is and we must not pre-suppose what will be contained in the regulations.
The intention of the Amendment is to write into the Bill a maximum, since it is necessary that we should understand just what sort of burden people will now be called upon to bear as a consequence of this Bill. My own view is that the Bill is hardly worth the time we are spending on it. If it is intended as a deterrent of abuse, it is surely plain that that argument has no validity. If it is intended to benefit the Exchequer, we have already heard that the amount we are likely to get out of this charge on prescriptions on appliances will not amount to very much.
I want to suggest what we ought to do. Perhaps at this juncture I may say that I shall not make any debating points. I do not want to score off the Government. Indeed, I believe that on the Government benches there are as many people who are desirous of doing the right thing as there are on these benches.
I think that the Minister has been forced by the Treasury into the position of having to do something; and what he is doing is not worth the unpopularity of this Measure. We ought to balance what

is likely to be the benefit of any money that might be saved, as against what damage is likely to be caused to the people from whom that money is extracted.
It would be interesting if some Members who are interested in this matter were to visit some of our orthopaedic hospitals, to see a young person lying on a plaster bed suffering from a tubercular spine, to see him fitted with a spinal appliance which enables him, when he is discharged, to walk. After he is discharged, that spinal appliance will not last very long, because he will change in form and in size, and a new spinal appliance will be required.
I am not attempting to exaggerate when I say that prior to the introduction of the National Health Service I have seen spinal jackets stained with the blood of the people who have worn them to the very limit of their ability to bear the pain and suffering of something that does not fit. We cannot ignore that sort of thing.
I see the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health looking at me. I want to pay her the compliment of saying that I know that during the period she has held her important office she has visited hospitals and institutions and has done her best to make herself acquainted with the job that she is called upon to do. I commend her for it. But I should be glad if the Government would look at the human aspect of this thing: for the sake of what little money is to be raised, what pain and suffering will be caused.
There may be those who say that that is an exaggeration, because people will not do the sort of thing I have described if they cannot afford an appliance; that we have made provision in the Bill, and they can go to the National Assistance Board for relief. It is a quite false conception of the idea of independence of the mass of working people to think that they readily go to the National Assistance Board. Indeed, the application of the means test which is implied in doing so is in itself an indignity that they do not like.
There are the questions which are asked: "How much rent do you pay?" "What income have you got?" "What obligations have you?" "What contributions do you make to a sick club or


trade union?" etc. Rather than put up with that sort of thing, those who are on the borderline of the income limits will put up with anything they can endure. This is an aspect that we ought to bear in mind.
If we were doing something that was to be of immense benefit on one side of the scale, perhaps it would be only right that we should ask that in order to balance that some people should be prepared to sacrifice. But is it our concept of present-day civilisation that the individual should be called upon to bear the full burden of any handicap from which he might suffer? Is it not the responsibility of the community? Is it not rather the fact that those of us who can do so should pool our resources to enable those less fortunate than ourselves to be as well equipped as possible to enable them to approach normality to the greatest extent which can be attained with these appliances.
There is the case of osteomyelitis requiring a caliper splint. During the time I have been in this House I have received not one, nor a dozen, but many letters from constituents, and indeed people other than constituents, asking, "Is it possible for you to get me a letter from a member of the Surgical Aid Society? I need 40 letters; I have managed to get 20 and I want 20 more." I have been in a position to approach hon. Members opposite and I have had no pride about this when it has meant the possibility of helping someone.. I have approached hon. Members on these benches who have been members of that society and I have, I hope, in consequence enabled people to get appliances.
We can regard Queen Mary's Hospital School at Carshalton as an illustration of what can be done for a handicapped and crippled child. It is a hospital school which takes them from the first year of their life until the age of 16. I have seen children at that school lying on their backs with an appliance above their heads to enable them to write while sitting—or rather lying—for their matriculation. The time has come when they have been discharged. Ought we not to secure for them the opportunity of getting those artificial aids that are required to enable them to take their place in ordinary social life?
I regard this question of appliances as of more importance than prescriptions. The average period of illness is 10 weeks. The exceptional cases go on for longer periods, but, covering the whole range, the average is 10 weeks. It will be seen that the question of medicaments and drugs is a burden for only a very short while, but there are homes which in the old days were darkened by the cloud caused by one member of the family being crippled and in need of constant renewal of an appliance. A child who is growing up needs a different size caliper splint, needs a different size surgical boot, or a different size spinal jacket as time goes on. There was always that anxiety on the part of the parents in the kind of home I have described as to whether or not they would be able to provide that appliance.
It might be said that this argument is rather exaggerated because the Minister has power under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, to make regulations, and that all these points will be taken into consideration, but we cannot escape the feeling that the attitude of the Minister has been, "I decline to put into the Bill any maximum. I reserve to myself the right of embodying limits in regulations." Why? There can be only one reason, and that reason is not to enable the amount to be decreased; he wants the power so that he can bring in regulations to increase the amount. Acceptance of this Amendment would give us some feeling of having prevented what might well be a burden which will make things very difficult for a family such as I have mentioned, for, as I said, this is a continuous charge.
10.15 p.m.
I recognise as well as anybody, perhaps better than most, that there is need for economy in this Service. I believe it would be possible to save money and to save very much more than will be gained as a result of this Bill. Even if that were not so it seems to me to be immoral to save money at the expense of those least able to afford it. Is it true that we can save money? I do not want to be a critic, but it may be remembered that in my Second Reading speech on the Act I made some criticisms. I have never been afraid of criticising what my friends do if I believe I can help them to do the right thing.
Let us remember that in the old days there were two types of hospitals, the voluntary hospital and the municipal hospital. The voluntary hospitals were able to spend only as much as they could collect. They were unable to be extravagant. There was no possibility of their being irresponsible, because they could not spend more than they could raise, and that was a definite check.
The municipal hospitals were usually managed by a committee who made recommendations to the municipality. They themselves were unable to spend. The municipality had a finance committee which examined every item of expenditure. Even when a budget was prepared they examined every item in it. Then, as we have reason to know by recent events, the ratepayer had the last word.
In consequence of those two checks there was a responsibility in expenditure which we have not at the present time. Indeed, those who are running the hospitals have not complete control of the expenditure. Let us examine the medical profession. I do not say that the members if the general practitioner service, who had a pay increase recently, did not deserve that increase; but if I had my way I should do my best to improve the standard of the general practitioner service. If we had a higher standard of general practitioner we might need fewer hospital beds. It would be not merely more convenient, but more economical to treat patients in their own home rather than in hospitals. It certainly costs a great deal to treat them in hospital, but that is by the way.
There is a section of the medical profession which is not doing too badly out of this Service. Before the Service came about there were certain municipalities which had well-staffed hospitals. They had built up teams. They had well-equipped, permanent staffs of medical men.
When the Act came in it gave the option to large numbers of those consultants to go on what was called a sessional basis. As a result of that change they became part-time, and there are consultants who in the old days were getting £1,500 a year and are now getting £3,000 or £4,000. Some attention ought to be

paid to that. Not merely are they getting that money, but they are getting expenses free of Income Tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might have a look at that position. They are able to charge expenses when they go on a domiciliary visit.
When the general practitioner wants a second opinion he can apply to a hospital management committee, and a consultant from the panel will make a domiciliary visit. In addition to drawing his salary, the consultant is able to charge mileage and indeed almost the whole of his expenses free of tax. That is one instance where money could be saved.
The next way in which I would suggest that we should save money is, by some means, to convert the Treasury. The Treasury has a system of finance. Hon. Members did not need me to remind them, because they will have read the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates. They will have read what happens about hospital finances. The management committee submits its estimate to a regional board. The regional board does its best to check that estimate and then passes it to the Ministry of Health. But if all the money within the budget is not expended, the management committee gets no credit for that.
The result is that on 31st March of each year the axe descends, but for perhaps two months before that date the management committees have been looking around to see where they can spend the money. That is not economical. It may have been that some work was to be done but that the starting date was late or the supply of material was delayed. The money would be there, but as a result of this system money which might be saved is spent. I suggest that money could be saved in a far better way than by saving it at the expense of the crippled child.
There is a wide field for economy in the Health Service. I do not blame anybody for this. We embarked on a gigantic experiment. It was something which was untried. We had nothing to guide us. We had to feel our way, but, we cannot continue to grope our way in the dark for ever. We must face up to the facts of the situation, and those facts are that the Service is more expensive


than it need be. But that is no justification for making those who deserve better treatment at the hands of their fellows shoulder the responsiblity for making good that for which we in our unwisdom have been responsible.
There can be no doubt that there are people who are living happier lives as a consequence of this Service. There is not the slightest doubt that it was a great piece of work. It has been built up. It is now a structure which we can examine. In examining that structure we can examine its weaknesses. What we ought to do is to repair those weaknesses and not try to extract the penalty of our own failure from those who ought to be recipients of the best part of the Service's benefits. One part of those benefits is dealt with in this Amendment.
Let us ensure that the impoverished borne will not be further impoverished, but that the maximum amount that people will be called upon to pay for a handicapped child, or perhaps for an adult member of the family, will be £1. If they are to share in the effecting of economies let us say that we will charge them only a proportion of the total cost if it is less than £1. I suggest that this is not merely a question of what we are doing, but a question of the method of approach.
What is it that we are trying to do? if we are trying to build a Service which is going to give the maximum benefit to the maximum number of people, we shall not do it this way. What one most fears is that the regulations will be followed by other regulations. When the minds of the people have become familiarised with paying for something, when the people have become accustomed to making payments, then the door is opened—perhaps only a little, but it will be widened—for further charges, until at last we shall have destroyed what has been the finest monument to the ability of the people of this country to build for themselves an instrument for the benefit of all.

Dr. Stross: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9—

The Temporary Chairman: It was agreed to consider the hon. Member's Amendment with the one now before the Committee, but the hon. Gentleman must not propose his Amendment now. He

can speak on the subject on the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer).

Dr. Stross: I am very happy to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer), even if I am very deeply conscious that certainly not I, and perhaps not many of us on either side of the Committee, can speak with such experience, such conviction and sincerity as he can, for, as I said earlier, his record is indeed one of great experience in the administration of this Service. I will, however, try to follow his example and present the facts, and let them speak for themselves as much as possible.
The discussion so far, both today and on the previous occasion when we considered this Bill in Committee, compels us to note that we have not been very successful in our encouragement to the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to come some way towards us in the efforts we have been trying to make in suggesting that these charges are not desirable and are not likely to bring in very much money.
My Amendment, which is concerned with charges for drugs and medicines, would, if carried, halve the amount of money received in each out-patients' department for drugs and medicines; that is to say, the Minister would receive only £250,000, compared with the £500,000 which he hoped to obtain if he charged 1s. for each prescription.
In his Second Reading speech, the Minister suggested that the £50 million total cost under this head for the whole country, represented some evidence of abuse. Some of us, including myself, in response to that suggestion, put to him the argument that we did not yet know clearly or exactly how many people have ceased going to the chemist's shop for self-medication, as compared with time before the Service was introduced.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead), who has great experience in this matter, is in his place. I suggested, from information given to me by pharmacists, that although the amount spent on self-medication today is approximately the same as in pre-war days, the actual amount of drugs and medicines bought, allowing for increased costs, etc., is half what it was before the war. As it was a figure of £30 million


before the war, then had there been no Health Service, it would, with rising costs, have been double that amount, without reckoning the medical service at all.
10.30 p.m.
I think it should be stressed that there is a movement away from self-medication and for people to use the Service. Therefore, the Minister and everyone else concerned should be careful not to attribute the responsibility for the increased drug bill too much to abuse or even over-use. One has to be careful and consider all the factors.
Whether any abuse can possibly pertain to the supply of drugs and medicines generally, we cannot believe that it can apply in the out-patients departments of our great hospitals. We are told that some 21 per cent. of all prescriptions in the country as a whole appear to be for proprietary remedies which are more expensive, more elegant and very often rather better made. This cannot apply to the out-patient department dispensary, unless the consultant who dispenses is quite certain in his own mind that there is no alternative which is cheaper and, at the same time, quite as good.
No consultant worthy of the name is going to offer to his patient, who has been referred to him by the general practitioner, any remedy which is not as good as is required for treating the disease from which the patient suffers. Nor is he going to allow the question of finance to stand between his right and power to cure the patient. We must not think at all of the "abuse" of the service in this connection.
There is another point, and here I know the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me. She told us the other day that about one per cent. of all prescriptions would cost less than 1s. and that of these the major proportion would cost round about 10d. Her statement, however—I am sure she would not deny it—suggests that a number of prescriptions cost less than 1s.; some—indeed, an appreciable number, though not an immense number—would cost about 6d.
We discussed in Committee the invidiousness of asking people to pay for their prescriptions more than their cost, for we realise—I know the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with this—that the

patient who receives the prescription in a hospital will be aware that if he takes it to the dispensary window in the hospital 1s. will be charged—the Parliamentary Secretary told us so—irrespective of the cost or the value of that prescription. But the patient is at liberty to walk out with the prescription and take it to a chemist and say "Is this going to cost less than 1s.? If so, I will pay cash for it and I will save my 6d., or 2d., whatever it may be."
The Ministry obviously intend that that right should be retained by the patient. Would it not be better if we cut this charge down to 6d.? The odds are that nobody would go round hawking his prescription forms to see if he can save a few pence. For certain reasons, we do not want that to happen. The first, and very obvious, reason is that it will put the chemist in a very difficult position. Second, the chemist having been put into a difficult position, the doctor then comes into the picture, when the patient goes back to him, and says "Doctor, what you prescribed for me really only cost me 4d. Why did you not warn me? I might well have paid 1s. I had to find out for myself from the chemist."
That is not a very good thing; and the third stage of this imbroglio would be for the doctor to ring up the chemist and say, "Why on earth do you want to put my patients off in this way?", and the chemist could only reply, "Do you expect me to tell them lies?" If the Minister and the Parliametnary Secretary could only agree to my Amendment, we should save a great deal of trouble and expense.
The patients who would come within the terms of my Amendment fall into the special classes, for they are selected by the general practitioners to go to the outpatient department, either as "difficult" cases, or because they feel they cannot handle them themselves. Perhaps it is a case of special disease which the general practitioner feels he cannot treat. Then, there are the other cases which come into the out-patient department following a period as in-patients. I will not go into the further question of outpatients' clinics—the tuberculosis or chest clinics, where one sees such chronic cases, and cases of such long-standing, that one feels it would really be inhuman to charge at all.
Regulations are to be drafted, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will especially bear in mind these chronic cases which go to chest clinics, or sometimes as out-patients to orthopaedic departments, if crippled, or for special treatment, if diabetic cases, as mentioned a few days ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham. Let us succeed here if not in other cases; this comparatively small class does not represent a serious cost, and we feel that the Government's proposal would extract money most unfairly.
Let me say a word to the Committee about this medicine-taking; this taking of pills. It is right and proper that we should use the time-old custom and allow for the other man's customs and sorrows. That is why we laugh at the funny man on the stage. We laugh at the clown because he has water thrown over him; because plates are smashed on his head, and he tumbles about and gets into all sorts of troubles. So, perhaps, we think it is funny that a person takes medicine. We laughed a little earlier over the question of wigs, and unless the remarkable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham has its effect, people will have to pay £2 10s. 0d. each for them.
But, I would inform the Committee that only last Friday a pottery workers' union in my constituency sent to me a young girl of only 16 years who was scalped on the first day at work; she had her hair torn off to the extent of the length of a man's hand, and her chances of facing the world—at the age of 16, I remind hon. Members opposite—without a wig, would have been impossible. But, with a wig, we hope that it will be possible for this girl to avoid the worst onslaughts of inferiority. It is a dreadfully serious matter, and I know everybody agrees about that even although, sometimes, we smile about such things.
About a fourth of the drugs and medicines that are being taken by the people of this country are sedatives to enable them to sleep; some of them are mild, others drastic. That is a recent development, I do not know why. Of course, if I am asked why members of this House do not sleep, there is an obvious explanation. But for the country

at large the matter I refer to is serious, and I have noted that it has become rather worse since the beginning of the last war. On the Continent it is worse than here. I hope that with the easing of national tension and the better frame of mind we are getting into in the world we shall see fewer of these dangerous drugs used for sedation.
For our part, we shall all sleep better if the Minister can see his way to accept this Amendment. Everybody in the country would appreciate the gesture. We shall never give up hope of persuading him and the Government that they are wrong. We shall do it as courteously and firmly as possible. As time goes on, we are sure that they will agree with us. Why do they not agree now?

Mr. Baird: I have sat in this House for nearly seven years and I believe that the last two speeches have been among the most informative to which I have listened. They show the complete contrast between this side of the Committee and the other side. I remember well that when the parent Measure, the National Health Service Act, was introduced in 1946, during the long Committee discussion the hon. Members for Tottenham (Mr. Messer), Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), and I criticised our Minister, moved Amendments, and were responsible for alterations in the Bill. What a complete contrast between them and now! Now, the back benchers opposite sit silent and glum while their Front Bench is destroying any hope that they ever had of winning another election.
First, I turn to two minor matters. If the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham is not carried, I wonder if the Committee realises that there is a possibility that the Government may find that they are imposing charges that exceed the cost of the appliances. A short time ago hearing aids were costing £30, £40, and more, but is it not a fact that as a result of the National Health Service the cost of hearing aids has been brought down to about £3, £4, or £5? If costs are falling so steeply because of the organisation within the Service, there is a chance that the prices of other appliances may be brought down. Therefore, there should be a percentage charge rather than the charge suggested by the Minister.
The right hon. Gentleman a short time ago took the opportunity of attacking me—and refused to give way—because I suggested in an interjection that the difference between the charges imposed by our Front Bench last year and those imposed now was that we imposed the charges reluctantly and the Government are imposing them gleefully. I answer him now. True, he does not look gleeful. But all of us here, watching Members behind him while my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), spoke about poor people buying glasses in Woolworth's and how they would be forced to buy appliances in the same way, saw that they were laughing, giggling, and enjoying themselves.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) was speaking, they thought it was a huge joke. That has been their attitude for a long time. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is present in the Committee. I represent many more constituents than he does. All through this debate he has been speaking about various points. I challenge him to debate these charges with me in the Wolverhampton Town Hall at any time.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Powell: Cannot the hon. Member get an audience even in Wolverhampton?

Mr. Baird: We will leave that to the people of Wolverhampton to decide.
We have heard very fine speeches from this side of the Committee. On the previous night when we considered this Bill we had a contribution from the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). I know he was completely sincere when he said that this was not a matter of party politics, that hon. Members on the Government side did not want to impose these charges, and that they did not want to destroy the Health Service any more than the Opposition did. As I say, I know the hon. Member is sincere, but this is a political issue, this Committee is divided on the matter, and the Tory Party want to destroy the National Health Service.
I remember that they voted against the Second Reading of the Act. I sat for three months in the Committee upstairs which considered the Bill. Day after day the Opposition divided the Committee on frivolous points designed to destroy the Health Service, and when the Bill came

back to the House for Third Reading, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) moved an Amendment, which stated:
This House, while welcoming a comprehensive Health Service, declines to give a Third Reading to a Bill which discourages voluntary effort and association; mutilates the structure of local government; dangerously increases Ministerial power and patronage; appropriates trust funds and benefactions"—

The Temporary Chairman: This Amendment is a narrow one, and I do not think the hon. Member can go back to matters of that kind. The Amendment concerns charges for appliances.

Mr. Baird: The Minister has argued that one of the necessities for this charge is because we have to keep the cost within a ceiling.

The Temporary Chairman: The Minister has not argued that on this Amendment, and we are now dealing with this narrow Amendment.

Mr. Baird: On the Second Reading he said that one of the major reasons for imposing the charges was that it was necessary to keep this ceiling to £400 million. If I might continue with the Conservative Amendment on the Third Reading of the 1946 Act, it goes on to say:
… undermines the freedom and independence of the medical profession. …

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member must obey my Ruling. He is going very wide of the Amendment, and I shall be glad if he will confine his remarks to the substance of this Amendment or resume his seat.

Mr. Baird: I have to accept your Ruling on this matter, Mr. Colegate, although the debate has been going very wide while I have been here. I have listened all the evening to the debate and I have expected, in view of the general wideness of the debate, to develop that point. However, I will not now pursue it further at this stage.
The second Amendment under review is concerned with reducing the charge for prescriptions from 1s. to 6d. I believe that this is a very important point, and in this connection I want to refer to what the Parliamentary Secretary said the other night when we were on this point. She was speaking of the number of prescriptions, and she argued that the number costing less than 1s. was almost


infinitesimal, less than 1 per cent. This is a major point, because there were 250 million prescriptions last year. Therefore, she might realise that it is not such a small matter. By accepting this Amendment she will get over her difficulty.
We on this side of the Committee believe that we have to try to preserve the principle of a free Health Service. We believe that the fact that this Service is free to people in time of need is fundamental. Imposing charges of this kind will bring in practically no revenue. Hon. Members opposite have not been inspired by trying to save our economy. They are trying to attack a Service of which they think no good.

Mr. Hamilton: I cannot hope to compete in experience with my three hon. Friends who have preceded me, but I want to say a word in support, particularly of the second Amendment, on which my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) spoke. He suggests that the prescription charge ought to be reduced to sixpence. Repeatedly in this Committee it has been suggested by hon. Members opposite, or at any rate the feeling has been conveyed by them, that this quibbling about coppers is irrelevant, and that it is meaningless to the people who will be affected by the Clause.
I would like to put before the Committee the case of the old age pensioner who has to consider the expenditure of every penny. Reduction of the charge from one shilling to sixpence means a great deal to an old age pensioner. Not many days ago I was in the house of an old age pensioner in my division. That pensioner put on her table three halfpennies and said, "That is all I have in the world."
Hon. Members opposite do not understand the conditions of these people. That same old woman said to me, "I went into the grocer's the other day, and the pennyworth of broken biscuits which I used to get has now gone up to threepence, and the six oatmeal biscuits I used to pay sixpence for have now gone up to sevenpence-halfpenny."
It is surely a reflection on this Committee that we should be sitting here at 11 o'clock at night talking about sixpence,

with the Government side of the Committee pretending that it is a contribution to the solution of the balance of payments problem. We talk glibly about facing the balance of payments problem of hundreds of millions of pounds—and quibble about a few pounds taken from people least able to bear the burden.
These old people—living, as I said, on broken biscuits and on oatmeal biscuits—do not know from one week to another where their meals are coming from. And here, the Government want to impose a charge of 1s. and we are trying to reduce it to 6d.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: I was not in the House at the time, but I seem to remember, and I have checked it in HANSARD, that hon. Members opposite went into the Lobby and voted on 9th December, 1949, for a charge of 1s. and made no attempt then to have it reduced to 6d. Can the hon. Member link that with his remarks?

Mr. Hamilton: The Labour Government never imposed a charge on any prescription. They took the power, but because they hoped to exclude just such people as I am talking about and found it administratively impossible to impose the charge, they never exercised their power.

Mr. Bennett: I was not querying what the Minister did or did not do as a result of powers given to him by the House. I was querying whether it was not hon. Members opposite—I am not aware whether the hon. Member himself voted, but the bulk of the Labour Party did—who gave the power, without any restrictions, to the Minister at that time. What the Minister did or did not do afterwards is quite immaterial to the argument.

Mr. Hamilton: We have been trying to point out from this side that whilst the power was given—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—I am doing the answering. If hon. Members opposite would make a few more speeches instead of merely sitting and interrupting with that kind of remark, we should get on with the argument. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have answered. I am saying—I was not in the House at that time—that when the Labour Government were in power, they found it administratively impossible to


exclude the very people that I am talking about, and for that reason—

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Hamilton: For that reason, the power that was taken was never invoked.

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member can make a speech if he wishes. Nobody on this side would regret it if Members on the other side would do so. We will sit even on Good Friday to discuss the Bill.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) when he says that perhaps there is a case for economies in the Health Service, but surely, if the Minister wants to make an economy of £500,000 or even £1 million on the Health Service, he should accept advice from such an experienced man as my hon. Friend rather than impose these charges on helpless people.
Whenever the nation is faced with economic difficulties, it is a reprehensible thing to attack the helpless sections of the community—the sick, the lame and old. These people will make a quite disproportionate contribution to the solution of our economic problems. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, who is, I believe, getting on towards being a millionaire, will be able to benefit by increased family allowances.
The people who are getting help from the Government are those living on un-earned incomes and those in the higher income groups. They are getting help while the old age pensioner, such as the person who put her three halfpennies in front of me as all the wealth she has in the world, is to be charged 1s. for a prescription.
11.0 p.m.
That is the philosophy of the Tory Party. That is why the Back Benchers have sat silent since 4 o'clock this afternoon HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have sat here almost continuously since 4 o'clock and I have heard only one or two speeches from the back benches opposite. If hon. Gentlemen feel that they can justify these charges, or feel they can make a contribution to the national problems of today, let them get

up and do so instead of sitting there like dump animals.

Miss Herbison: I wish to support both Amendments, but I wish to talk particularly about the second one in which we are asking the Minister to make the charge for prescriptions no more than sixpence. I remember on Thursday of last week, when the Parliamentary Secretary was replying to this side of the Committee, she said that the old age pensioners would pay a shilling for the prescription and that when they went to collect their pensions they would hand in the certificate the doctors had given them in order to get their shillings back.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I did clear this point up. I said that the old age pensioner in receipt of National Assistance allowance, when presenting the prescription to the chemist, would get a receipt which could be taken to the Post Office when the supplementary and old age pension were drawn.

Miss Herbison: There is not much difference. Instead of taking the certificate from the doctor to the Post Office it is to be a certificate from the chemist. It seems so mechanically simple to the hon. Lady, and seemingly to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but we are not just interested in the mechanics of it, whether it is a certificate from a doctor or a chemist. We are interested in the old age pensioners who just will not have a shilling on many of the days they go to get a prescription. On the first day of this debate I made this point and one hon. Member opposite called out "Nonsense."
If hon. Gentleman opposite started on a Monday morning with 30s. in their pockets perhaps by the Monday night they would not have a shilling to give to a doctor for a prescription. Yet they to regard their way of life as being inherently different from the way of life of thousands of the poorest people. Many old age pensioners have only 30s. a week and a few shillings of supplementary pension.
This charge will be one of the greatest hardships not only to old age pensioners but to people in the lowest income groups. The people about whom we are talking are those who will get prescriptions from


the hospitals. Not only will they have to pay for the prescriptions but they will have to pay their travelling expenses as well. In a scattered area like mine, and it must be the same in rural England and Wales, that is a very great hardship. For the constituents of those who represent a city area it is perhaps a matter of a short bus or tram ride costing about twopence.
Those of us who represent scattered constituencies know that patients who have to travel long distances have that extra expense to meet, unless it is paid by the National Assistance Board, and on top of that they will have to pay this 1s. for a prescription. Very often these patients are those who have not been working for a long time and possibly will not be working for a long time in the future. In other words, they are people who are living on the minimum standard in this country.
It seems strange to me that, no matter how divorced are hon. Members opposite from the conditions of the ordinary working people and old age pensioners, they have not at least the imagination to see the kind of life that these people have to lead. I most strongly support this second Amendment and make the request that at least this charge will be reduced to sixpence since we have failed to have it wiped out altogether.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: rose—

Dr. Horace King: On a point of order. I have sat through this debate since it began. Occupants of the Chair have been more numerous than the Amendments we have discussed. Is it reasonable to move the Closure when hon. Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not yet"]—In the previous debate, as soon as the Minister sat down, the Chief Whip moved the Closure.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): That is not a point of order. It is within the discretion of the Chair.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer), who moved the first of the Amendments we are discussing, spoke with his customary knowledge and, if I may say so, with a general restraint which has not been so apparent among other hon. Members opposite. But he wandered rather wide of the Amendment. I think

it a little unjust to accuse us, or at least to infer that we propose to levy charges on appliances for which we have no intention of charging at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Put it in the Bill."] The hon. Member for Tottenham referred with great sincerity to the case of people who required spinal appliances, spinal jackets and caliper splints. But for none of these appliances has my right hon. Friend any intention of making a charge at all.

Mr. Messer: The hon. Lady will remember that I pointed out that we were dealing with the Bill and not with the intentions of the Minister. I showed clearly that I was dealing with the Bill, and that is all that the Committee can do.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member has made that point, but it is customary when a Minister is specific on a point of information for which the Committee has asked to accept the statement from the Minister.

Mr. Lindgren: What about Lord Woolton? [HON. MEMBERS: "Friendly Societies."]

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend has repeatedly assured the Committee that there are four items on which it is proposed to levy charges. They do not include many of the wide range of appliances upon which hon. Members have discoursed. The regulations will fix the charges on these four items at the rates which have already been stated by my right hon. Friend and these regulations will be subject to annulment. It will be more appropriate to debate these charges when the regulations are before the House.
The hon. Member for Tottenham also referred, with great pathos, and with sympathy which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee share, to the problem of the crippled child, but it is in the Bill that no charge will be made for appliances for children under 16, or over that age and attending full-time at school. It is, therefore, quite unfair to infer that hon. Members on this side of the Committee have any intention of charging for appliances for children. It may have been a sympathetic speech, but it was unfair in its inference. We were also told by the hon. Gentleman that


people should not be called upon to pay the full amount of these costs. We agree.
The charges outlined by my right hon. Friend are, first, £1 for surgical belts. The cost of a surgical belt ranges from £2 11s. 6d. to £6 10s. 0d. I do not think that to charge £1 out of those amounts could be inferred as asking people to bear the full burden.

Mr. Baird: Where does it say in the Bill that no children shall be charged for surgical appliances?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend made that statement on the Second Reading of the Bill. My right hon. Friend certainly made it amply clear—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is it in the Bill?"] If hon. Gentlemen will let me get the sentence out, I think that I can satisfy them. My right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear on Second Reading, and if I inadvertently used the words "in the Bill" when it is not in the Bill, I apologise.

Mr. Messer: Why not put it in the Bill?

Mr. Hector McNeil: No one likes to be discourteous to the hon. Lady, but this is a most important point. If the Committee can be assured that the Government, at whatever stage they think appropriate, will amend the Bill to that effect, the Committee will be most grateful. We are discussing the Bill in Committee at this stage; we are not talking about the Second Reading.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Hon. Members know that the Regulations will be laid before the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend made it clear in his Second Reading speech that the charges would not apply to appliances for children, and will be incorporated. The statement made by my right hon. Friend is in c. 850 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 27th March.
To revert to the point with which I was dealing, the charge for elastic stockings is from 5s. to 10s. for the varying lengths. The cost of these stockings is from 23s. a pair to 81s. a pair, though I want to make it plain that the charge is from 5s. to 10s. per stocking.
The average cost of surgical boots is £9 for men and £8 10s. 0d. for women.

Towards that, the patient is asked to pay £3. The average cost of wigs is between £14 and £17 for full wigs, and towards that cost the patient will be asked to pay £2 10s. Therefore, I do not think it can be accepted that, in any sense, we are calling upon people to pay the full burden of these charges.
11.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), who dealt specifically with the point raised in his Amendment, knows full well, as do other hon. Members who took part in the discussion on the suggested lowering of the prescription charge to sixpence, that this item in the Bill is paralleled in the charge announced as a prescription charge in connection with the 1949 Act. If the second Amendment were accepted, it would, in fact, mean that the charge on prescriptions from general practitioners, dispensed either by them or at chemists' shops, would be a shilling, and, if dispensed in hospital dispensaries, sixpence. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to get up and point out the injustice and inequity of two separate charges. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady would also be the first to get up in protest at two different charges.

Mrs. Braddock: Perhaps I can be the first one to get up now? Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the payment of sixpence would do a lot of harm to the Bill? Will she tell us how the person who is in receipt of National Assistance is to intimate to the chemist or doctor, or whoever gives the prescription, that she is in receipt of National Assistance? Does it mean that we are disclosing, for the first time since 1948, what person receives a pension or such payment as they do receive?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Not necessarily. Anyone may ask for a receipt. They will only get the shilling back when they present it at the Post Office with their books showing that they are entitled to supplementary pensions.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Lady is very good to give way. I should like to get this point clear, for I am still not clear about the process. My hon. Friend raised the question of persons in receipt of National Assistance. Those persons go to the chemist and pay their


shilling. They do not go to the Post Office. Where do they go to recover their shilling?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: When they draw their supplementary payment, from whatever office it may be, they will put in the receipt and draw an extra shilling.
If we accepted the second Amendment and allowed the difference in charge, there would be enormous pressure on the out-patients' departments and dispensaries of hospitals, as opposed to those attending chemists' shops with prescriptions from their general practitioners. Hon. Members opposite have, throughout the discussion, consistently and persistently ignored the fact that hardship cases can be dealt with, and that those people, who run into a considerable number, who are in receipt of supplementary payments from the National Assistance Board, will be able to regain the prescription charge.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), referred to people on a minimum scale of living. Those are surely the very people who are covered by National Assistance Board supplementary payments. An hon. Member referred to the old age pensioner who had only 1½d. in the world. That person would be in receipt of a National Assistance payment.

Mr. Hamilton: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Lady does not give way, the hon. Gentleman cannot speak.

Miss Herbison: rose—

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I have given way on a considerable number of occasions to hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Hamilton: How is the old age pensioner going to pay the shilling?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: If the lady to whom the hon. Gentleman refers is in receipt of a National Assistance supplementary payment, she will not be reduced to 1½d.

Mr. Hamilton: But she is.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), suggested that we might, even under these regulations, be charging

more than the articles cost. I think that is a wholly unworthy suggestion which he knows perfectly well will be far from the effect of these regulations. I hope that from these figures which I have already given, which show what a moderate proportion of the total cost of these appliances is being charged, he will realise that there is no suggestion whatsoever that the charges should be higher than the cost of the appliances provided.

Mr. Baird: I do not trust the Tories on anything.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Gentleman went on to say that it was fundamental in the minds of all hon. Members opposite that there should be a free Service. He forgets that his own Government imposed charges which brought economies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite may groan, but the charges imposed by hon. Members opposite brought in a larger sum, and were greater in their impact than the charges imposed by my right hon. Friend. It is problematical whether people would prefer their teeth or their wigs. They are both very important.

Mrs. Braddock: What about their surgical boots and shoes?

An Hon. Member: What about their eyes?

Mr. Lindgren: They have had their eyes opened.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: There has been throughout the debate a persistent attempt to ignore the fact that the same provisions for hardship are made in this Bill as were made in previous legislation by the Labour Government, and I do not remember hon. Members opposite then complaining that there was this complete lack of provision for those who might be in need. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes."] Well, there was a very small minority, but the majority of hon. Members who have brought out their cases of extreme suffering this evening know that the provision for hardship which we are making is identical with that which their Government thought adequate in previous legislation.
Therefore, we consider that the two suggestions made, firstly, concerning charges for appliances, and secondly prescription charges, which would result in


a difference in charge according to where the prescription was made up—should be rejected.

Mr. Marquand: I should like to have a clarification of a remark made by the hon. Lady just now. In Clause 1 we are dealing with charges for drugs, medicines, and appliances. I would ask the Minister if it is his intention, at a later stage in the Bill, to insert a similar subsection to that in Clause 2 relating to the specific exemption of schoolchildren from charges for dental treatment. Will this exemption apply in Clause 1 as in Clause 2? That is what we on this side understood the hon. Lady to promise.

Mr. Crookshank: The Committee may recall that, on Second Reading, I said that no charge for hospital appliances for children under sixteen years, or in full-time attendance at school, would be made. But that will emerge in the regulations.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. E. Fernyhough: (seated and covered): I understand that the Question whether the Motion to close the

debate should be accepted lies solely in the hands of the Chair. I submit that, having regard to the importance of the Amendment which we have been discussing, there has not been adequate time allowed. Further, since so many hon. Members were on their feet wanting to talk on this vital matter, surely it would have been better that they should have been allowed to ventilate their views prior to acceptance of this Motion? Are you aware, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that there were only three hon. Members on this side of the Committee who were able to make speeches? Is that adequate discussion?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Sir R. Acland: (seated and covered): The former Minister of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) rose to make a speech, and gave way so that the present Minister of Health could answer him; but he intended to continue his speech. Surely a Member of the Front Bench of the Opposition should be allowed to make a concluding speech before the Motion is put?

The Deputy-Chairman: I understand, first of all, that that was not the case. Secondly, it is not a point of order, but a debate on the position.

Ayes, 278; Noes, 254.

Division No. 73.]
AYES
[11.28 a.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Braine, B. R.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Alport, C. J. M.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Cuthbert, W. N.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Deedes, W. F.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Digby, S. Wingfield


Arbuthnot, John
Brooman-White, R. C.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bullard, D. G.
Donner, P. W.


Baker, P. A. D.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)


Baldwin, A. E.
Burden, F. F. A.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Banks, Col. C.
Butcher, H. W.
Duthie, W. S.


Barber, A. P. L.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.


Baxter, A. B.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Carson, Hon. E.
Fell, A.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Cary, Sir Robert
Finlay, Graeme


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Channon, H.
Fisher, Nigel


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Fort, R.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Cole, Norman
Foster, John


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Birch, Nigel
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lansdale)


Bishop, F. P.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gage, C. H.


Black, C. W.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cranborne, Viscount
Gammans, L. D.


Bossom, A. C.
Cookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Bowen, E. R.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Crouch, R. F.
Glyn, Sir Ralph




Godber, J. B.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Roper, Sir Harold


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Gough, C. F. H.
Lyttelten, Rt. Hon. O.
Russell, R. S.


Gower, H. R.
McAdden, S. J.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Graham, Sir Fergus
McCallum, Major D.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Grimond, J.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Scott, R. Donald


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McKibbin, A. J.
Shepherd, William


Harden, J. R. E.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maclay, Hon. John
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Snadden, W. McN.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Soames, Capt. C.


Heald, Sir Lionel
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Heath, Edward
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Marples, A. E.
Stevens, G. P.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maude, Angus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maudling, R.
Storey, S.


Hollis, M. C.
Maydon, Lt. Cmdr. S. L. C.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hope, Lord John
Mellor, Sir John
Studholme, H. G.


Hopkinson, Henry
Molson, A. H. E.
Summers, G. S.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Sutcliffe, H.


Horobin, I. M.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Teeling, W.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nicholls, Harmar
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hurd, A. R.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Nutting, Anthony
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Oakshott, H. D.
Tilney, John


Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Odey, G. W.
Touche, G. C.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Turton, R. H.


Kaberry, D.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Keeling, Sir Edward
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Osborne, C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lambton, Viscount
Partridge, E.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Watkinson, H. A.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Leather, E. H. C.
Pitman, I. J.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Lindsay, Martin
Profumo, J. D.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Linstead, H. N.
Raikes, H. V.
Wills, G.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Redmayne, M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Remnant, Hon. P.
York, C.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)



Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Low, A. R. W.
Robson-Brown, W.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Vosper


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Blenkinsop, A.
Champion, A. J.


Adams, Richard
Blyton, W. R.
Chapman, W. D.


Albu, A. H.
Boardman, H.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Clunie, J.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bowden, H. W.
Cocks, F. S.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bowles, F. G.
Coldrick, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Collick, P. H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brockway, A. F.
Cook, T. F.


Baird, J.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Balfour, A.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cove, W. G.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Bence, C. R.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Crosland, C. A. R.


Benn, Wedgwood
Burke, W. A.
Crossman, R. H. S.


Benson, G.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Beswick, F.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Callaghan, L. J.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Bing, G. H. G.
Carmichael, J.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)


Blackburn, F.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)







Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Rhodes, H.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Deer, G.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Delargy, H. J.
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Dodds, N. N.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Donnelly, D. L.
King, Dr. H. M.
Ross, William


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Royle, C.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lewis, Arthur
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Edelman, M.
Lindgren, G. S.
Short, E. W.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacColl, J. E.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McInnes, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Ewart, R.
McLeavy, F.
Snow, J. W.


Fernyhough, E.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sorensen, R. W.


Field, Capt. W. J.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Fienburgh, W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sparks, J. A.


Finch, H. J.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Steele, T.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham E.)


Follick, M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Foot, M. M.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Forman, J. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mayhew, C. P.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mellish, R. J.
Swingler, S. T.


Gibson, C. W.
Messer, F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Glanville, James
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Gorden-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Monslow, W.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Grey, C. F.
Morley, R.
Thurtle, Ernest


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Timmons, J.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Tomney, F.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mort, D. L.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Moyle, A.
Viant, S. P.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Muller, F. W.
Wallace, H. W.


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Murray, J. D.
Watkins, T. E.


Hamilton, W. W.
Nally, W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford C.)


Hannan, W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsever)
Weitzman, D.


Hargreaves, A.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hastings, S.
O'Brien, T.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hayman, F. H.
Orbach, M.
West, D. G.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Oswald, T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Padley, W. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Herbison, Miss M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hobson, C. R.
Pannell, Charles
Wigg, G. E. C.


Holman, P.
Pargiter, G. A.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Houghton, Douglas
Parker, J.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Hoy, J. H.
Paton, J.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Hubbard, T. F.
Pearson, A.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Peart, T. F.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Poole, C. C.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Popplewell, E.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Porter, G.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Janner, B.
Proctor, W. T.
Wyatt, W. L.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Pryde, D. J.
Yates, V. F.


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Rankin, John



Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reeves, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Horace Holmes.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Reid, William (Camlachie)

Question put accordingly "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 276.

Division No. 74.]
AYES
[11.39 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Boardman, H.


Adams, Richard
Bence, C. R.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.


Albu, A. H.
Benn, Wedgwood
Bowen, E. R.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Benson, G.
Bowles, F. G.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Beswick, F.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Brockway, A. F.


Awbery, S. S.
Bing, G. H. C.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Blackburn, F.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Baird, J.
Blenkinsop, A.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Balfour, A.
Blyton, W. R.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)




Burke, W. A.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Houghton, Douglas
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hoy, J. H.
Proctor, W. T.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hubbard, T. F.
Pryde, D. J.


Carmichael, J.
Hudson, James (Ealing N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rankin, John


Champion, A. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reeves, J.


Chapman, W. D.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Clunie, J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rhodes, H.


Cocks, F. S.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Coldrick, W.
Janner, B.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Collick, P. H.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Cook, T. F.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechferd)
Ross, William


Cove, W. G.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Short, E. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Keenan, W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Snow, J. W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Deer, G.
Lewis, Arthur
Sparks, J. A.


Delargy, H. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Steele, T.


Dodds, N. N.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Donnelly, D. L.
Logan, D. G.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Driberg, T. E. N.
MacColl, J. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McGhee, H. G.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McInnes, J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Edelman, M.
McLeavy, F.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Swingler, S. T.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Sylvester, G. O.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Ewart, R.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Field, Capt. W. J.
Manuel, A. C.
Thurtle, Ernest


Fienburgh, W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Timmons, J.


Finch, H. J.
Mayhew, C. P.
Tomney, F.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mellish, R. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Follick, M.
Messer, F.
Viant, S. P.


Foot, M. M.
Mikardo, Ian
Wallace, H. W.


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Watkins, T. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Monslow, W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford C.)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Moody, A. S.
Weitzman, D.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gibson, C. W.
Morley, R.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Glanville, James
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
West, D. G.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mort, D. L.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Moyle, A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mulley, F. W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Grey, C. F.
Murray, J. D.
Wigg, G. E. C.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Nally, W.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Grimond, J.
O'Brien, T.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Orbach, M.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oswald, T.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Padley, W. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hamilton, W. W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hannan, W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hargreaves, A.
Pannell, Charles
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hastings, S.
Pargiter, G. A.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Hayman, F. H.
Parker, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Paton, J.
Wyatt, W. L.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Pearson, A.
Yates, V. F.


Herbison, Miss M.
Peart, T. F.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie



Hobson, C. R.
Popplewell, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Holman, P.
Porter, G.
Mr. Bowden and Mr. Royle.







NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Gage, C. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Alport, C. J. M.
Gammans, L. D.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Godber, J. B.
Marples, A. E.


Ashton H. (Chelmsford)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gough, C. F. H.
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Baker, P. A. D.
Gower, H. R.
Maude, Angus


Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maudling, R.


Baldwin, A. E.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Banks, Col. C.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Barber, A. P. L.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mellor, Sir John


Baxter, A. B.
Harden, J. R. E.
Molson, A. H. E.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nicholls, Harmar


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Heald, Sir Lionel
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Heath, Edward
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Birch, Nigel
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Bishop, F. P.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nutting, Anthony


Black, C. W.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Oakshott, H. D.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Odey, G. W.


Bossom, A. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Braine, B. R.
Hollis, M. C.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Hope, Lord John
Osborne, C.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hopkinson, Henry
Partridge, E.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Horobin, I. M.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bullard, D. G.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham N.)
Pitman, I. J.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Hurd, A. R.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Butcher, H. W.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Profumo, J. D.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Raikes, H. V.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Carson, Hon. E.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Redmayne, M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Chanson, H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Kaberry, D.
Robson-Brown, W.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Keeling, Sir Edward
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cole, Norman
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Roper, Sir Harold


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, R. S.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Cranborne, Viscount
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Leather, E. H. C.
Scott, R. Donald


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Crouch, R. F.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Shepherd, William


Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lindsay, Martin
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Cuthbert, W. N.
Linstead, H. N.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Deedes, W. F.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Snadden, W. McN.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Soames, Capt. C.


Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Donner, P. W.
Low, A. R. W.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Spent, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stevens, G. P.


Duthie, W. S.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
McAdden, S. J.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McCallum, Major D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fell, A.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Storey, S.


Finlay, Graeme
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Fisher, Nigel
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
McKibbin, A. J.
Studholme, H. G.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Summers, G. S.


Fort, R.
Maclay, Hon. John.
Suteliffe, H.


Foster, John
Maclean, Fitzroy
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Teeling, W.







Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Vane, W. M. F.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Thompson, Lt.-Cdr R. (Croydon, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wills, G.


Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Wood, Hon. R.


Tilney, John
Watkinson, H. A.
York, C.


Touche, G. C.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)



Turner, H. F. L.
White, Baker (Canterbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Turton, R. H.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Mr. Drew and Mr. Vosper.

Amendment proposed: in page 1, line 9, at end, insert:
Provided that no such charge for drugs or medicine shall exceed sixpence—[Dr. Stross.]

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committed divided: Ayes 252; Noes, 277.

Division No. 75.]
AYES
[11.50 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Edelman, M.
King, Dr. H. M.


Adams, Richard
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Albu, A. H.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lewis, Arthur


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lindgren, G. S.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Awbery, S. S.
Ewart, R.
Logan, D. G.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, J. E.


Baird, J.
Field, Capt. W. J.
McGhee, H. G.


Balfour, A.
Fienburgh, W.
McInnes, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Finch, H. J.
McLeavy, F.


Bence, C. R.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Benn, Wedgwood
Follick, M.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Benson, G.
Foot, M. M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Beswick, F.
Forman, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bing, G. H. C.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Blackburn, F.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Blenkinsop, A.
Gibson, C. W.
Manuel, A. C.


Blyton, W. R.
Glanville, James
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Boardman, H.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mayhew, C. P.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mellish, R. J.


Bowden, H. W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Messer, F.


Bowles, F. G.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mikardo, Ian


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Grey, C. F.
Mitchison, G. R.


Brockway, A. F.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Monslow, W.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moody, A. S.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morley, R.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Burke, W. A.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mort, D. L.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hannan, W.
Moyle, A.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hargreaves, A.
Mulley, F. W.


Carmichael, J.
Hastings, S.
Murray, J. D.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hayman, F. H.
Nally, W.


Champion, A. J.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Chapman, W. D.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
O'Brien, T.


Clunie, J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Orbach, M.


Cocks, F. S.
Hobson, C. R.
Oswald, T.


Coldrick, W.
Holman, P.
Padley, W. E.


Collick, P. H.
Houghton, Douglas
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Cook, T. F.
Hoy, J. H.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hubbard, T. F.
Pannell, Charles


Cove, W. G.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Craddock, George ((Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parker, J.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paton, J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pearson, A.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Peart, T. F.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Popplewell, E.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Janner, B.
Porter, G.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Price Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Proctor, W. T.


Deer, G.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Pryde, D. J.


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Dodds, N. N.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Rankin, John


Donnelly, D. L.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Reeves, J.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Keenan, W.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rhodes, H.




Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Swingler, S. T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Sylvester, G. O.
Wigg, G. E. C.


Ross, William
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wilkins, W. A.


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Short, E. W.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Thomas, Ivor, Owen (Wrekin)
Williams, David (Neath)


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Tilney, John
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Timmons, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Tomney, F.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Snow, J. W.
Viant, S. P.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Sorensen, R. W.
Wallace, H. W.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Watkins, T. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Sparks, J. A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Wyatt, W. L.


Steele, T.
Weitzman, D.
Yates, V. F.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Wells, William (Walsall)



Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
West, D. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Mr. Royle and Mr. Holmes.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Crowder, Petro (Ruislip—Northwood)
Horobin, I. M.


Alport, C. J. M.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Deedes, W. F.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Anstruther-Gray, Maj. W. J.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Arbuthnot, John
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hurd, A. R.


Ashton, H. (Chlemsford)
Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Donner, P. W.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Baker, P. A. D.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Draws, C.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)


Banks, Col. C.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Johnson, Eric (Blackleg)


Barber, A. P. L.
Duthie, W. S.
Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Baxter, A. B.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Kaberry, D.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fell, A.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Finlay, Graeme
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fisher, Nigel
Lambton, Viscount


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fort, R.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Birch, Nigel
Foster, John
Leather, E. H. C.


Bishop, F. P.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Black, C. W.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gage, C. H.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Bossom, A. C.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lindsay, Martin


Bowen, E. R.
Gammans, L. D.
Linstead, H. N.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Boyle, Sir Edward
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Braine, B. R.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Godber, J. B.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col J. C.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Longden, Gilbert (Herbs, S.W.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gough, C. F. H.
Low, A R. W.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Gower, H. R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bullard, D. G.
Grimond, J.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McAdden, S. J.


Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McCallum, Major D.


Burden, F. F. A.
Harden, J. R. E.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Butcher, H. W.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mackeson, Brig. H.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McKibbir, A. J.


Carson, Hon. E.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Cary, Sir Robert
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maclay, Hon. John


Channon, H.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maclean, Fitzroy


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Heald, Sir Lionel
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Cole, Norman
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Macpherson, Maj Niall (Dumfries)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hollis, M. C.
Marples, A. E.


Crookshank, Capt Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hope, Lord John
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Crouch, R. F.
Hopkinson, Henry
Maude, Angus







Maudling, R.
Redmayne, M.
Sutcliffe, H.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Hesley)
Taylor, William (Bradford. N.)


Mellor, Sir John
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Teeling, W.


Molson, A. H. E.
Robson-Brown, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Roper, Sir Harold
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Russell, R. S.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Nicholls, Harmar
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Tilney, John


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Touche, G. C.


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Turner, H. F. L.


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Scott, R. Donald
Turton, R. H.


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Nutting, Anthony
Shepherd, William
Vane, W. M. F.


Oakshott, H. D.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Odey, G. W.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Vesper, D. F.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Snadden, W. McN.
Watkinson, H. A.


Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Soames, Capt. C.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Osborne, C.
Spearman, A. C. M.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Partridge, E.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Stevens, G. P.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Pitman, I. J.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Wills, G.


Powell, J. Enoch
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Storey, S.
York, C.


Profumo, J. D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)



Raikes, H. V.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rayner, Brig. R.
Summers, G. S.
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Heat

12 midnight.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I rise on a point of order which is of fundamental importance to myself and many of my hon. Friends. I wish to ask what is the position for the future of our debates in this Committee with regard to the Closure. We all understand that it is within the discretion of the Chair to accept the Closure Motion. But in the last part of our debate two Amendments were discussed together. There were only four speeches from this side of the Committee, there was one speech by the Parliamentary Secretary and there was an intervention by the Minister—

The Deputy-Chairman: rose—

Mr. Mellish: With great respect, I am coming to the point. The Closure Motion was then moved by the Chief Patronage Secretary and it was immediately accepted by the Chair. In the past, it has always been the practice of the Chair to defend the rights of minorities and to ensure that they got an opportunity to express their point of view. In view of what appears to be the changed circumstances, in the last debate, I should like to ask what will be the position in future with regard to the acceptance of the Closure Motion?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order. Acceptance of the Closure Motion is a matter for the Chair.

The Chair takes cognisance of the rights of minorities. If the Chair thinks that those rights have been protected, it exercises discretion. The hon. Member is really debating that discretion.

Sir R. Acland: I should like to make an appeal to you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, in furtherance of the point I raised seated and covered during the Division on the Closure Motion. We who might be called the "small fry" of the back benches understand that, by the brutality of the Chief Whip and the discretion of the Chair, many of us have to be cut out on these occasions. But it would make it a little better if we could feel that after the Minister has dealt with each short debate our Front Bench representative should have a full chance of making a reply. I appeal to you not to close the debate in the middle of a speech by a Member of the Front Bench when he gives way for a moment.

The Deputy-Chairman: I thought that that point had been dealt with. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had finished his speech; I may have been wrong. In any event, I exercised my discretion, and that discretion cannot now be debated on a point of order.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot hear a point of order if there is a lot of noise.

Mr. Baird: On a point of order. Just before the debate was brought to a close by the acceptance of the Closure, the Minister had made a most important statement that children under 16 would be exempt from these charges. My point is that the statement was made that this will be carried out through the regulations—

The Deputy-Chairman: This is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to debate the matter. The Chair has to carry out the Standing Orders of the House and that is what I am seeking to do.

Mr. James Carmichael: I would not go to the length of saying that I am raising a point of order. I do not want to try to be clever about raising points of order, but I am entitled to ask for your guidance, Mr. Hopkin Morris. The guidance I want at this stage, because the proceedings may go on for a number of hours, is in regard to the future of this debate on the Bill. Are we to take it as an established fact that, when the Chief Government Whip rises, we can automatically recognise that no further speeches will be possible?

The Deputy-Chairman: That, too, is a reflection on the discretion of the Chair.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Pannell: Are you aware, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that I was given three hours' notice by an hon. Member opposite that he was going to raise a matter concerning a speech I made some time ago, that I presented myself here and have been hanging about ever since, and that the hon. Member rose with the Parliamentary Secretary, but was debarred by the Closure and that my time has been wasted?

The Deputy-Chairman: There can be no further points of order upon the exercise of the discretion of the Chair. The Standing Orders provide ways and means of dealing with that discretion. If the hon. Member wishes to reflect upon it, there are ways and means provided, but they are not provided by arguing points of order.

Mr. Mellish: I wish to give notice that I intend to put down a Motion regarding the conduct of the Chair.

Hon. Members: Oh.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is perfectly in order in putting down such a Motion, but he is not in order to debate it now.

Miss Irene Ward: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the charges which shall be made in respect of the supply of appliances to nationals of foreign countries shall in no case be less than will represent the full cost of the supply of such appliances to the persons aforesaid.
I must apologise to the Committee for having such a croaky voice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] I say so to hon. Members opposite that I have been brought up in a tough part of the world—[Interruption]. Hon. Members opposite may make as much noise as they like, but, until I am ruled out of order by the Chair, I shall stand here on my feet until I have said what I want to say.
First, I want to apologise for having such a croaky voice, but I am suffering from—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. G. Thomas): I think hon. Members might give the Committee an opportunity of hearing the hon. Lady.

Miss Ward: First, I want to apologise to the Committee for having such a croaky voice. I have a bad attack of laryngitis.
I feel that I have a fairly good chance of making an impression upon my right hon. Friend with this Amendment, because when we were discussing the National Health Service (Amendment) Act which was in very much the same terms as we are discussing today, and when hon. Members opposite were in the Government and we on this side were in the Opposition, my party moved an Amendment in very similar terms to the one that I am now moving. Indeed, my party gave unanimous support in the Division Lobby to the principle which I seek to embody in this Bill.
The object of my Amendment is to exclude from the Bill free medical appliances, dentures, spectacles and wigs to foreign nationals. I say without hesitation that there is a great deal of feeling on the part of the people in this country that foreigners continue to be permitted


the full value of these articles, having regard to the fact that owing to this country's financial situation we have got to impose charges on our own nationals. I think that the psychological effect of the acceptance of my Amendment would be very profound in the country as a whole, and it is a matter on which I hold very strong views indeed.
It will not have escaped the notice of hon. Members that the Minister of Health in the Socialist Government took powers to impose this charge on foreign nationals, but for some reason best known to himself he failed to take advantage of the powers which the House had given him. I am asking my right hon. Friend to make use of such powers.
I understand that the difficulties in the way of imposing these charges are purely administrative, but I cannot believe, having regard to the high calibre of the advice given by our civil servants to Ministers, that even a Socialist Minister would have gone completely contrary to the advice of his civil servants and asked Parliament to give him powers which, according to his civil servants, were not capable of being administratively put into effect.
I can very well understand that in relation purely to health matters it might be very difficult for a doctor who is called upon to give emergency treatment to be able to differentiate between a foreign national and a naturalised British subject who gives all the indications of being of foreign birth. Therefore, in my Amendment I have specifically eliminated any question of medical or prescription charges, because I think that that will go some way to eliminate the administrative difficulties which have been such a handicap, as I understand it, to my right hon. Friend's introduction of an Amendment such as this into this Bill.
12.15 a.m.
But I really cannot accept that it would be beyond the wit of the Minister of Health to find a way of imposing charges on foreign nationals for dentures, spectacles, medical appliances and wigs. As hon. Members are aware, when wigs, or spectacles, or dentures are required, a certain procedure has to be followed. In every local authority area there is a committee which deals with the optical problem, and there is one for the dental problem. These committees are composed

of responsible men and women, with great local knowledge, and there are both opticians and dentists who also serve on the committees.
In order to try to test whether these committees play an important part in the administration of ophthalmic and dental services within the local authority areas, I asked my right hon. Friend, the Minister, if I could have a guarantee, in the interests of economy, that it was impossible for any British subject to get a double set of dentures, or spectacles, without having satisfied the relevant committee as to the good faith of the application.
My right hon. Friend assured me in these terms—and I should like to read his letter because to a large extent it makes my case. He wrote on 19th March,
You inquired what safeguard there is to make sure that people do not get two or three sets of glasses or dentures from different practitioners under the Service. I ought to explain that a person cannot obtain glasses through the supplementary services unless and until the supply of fresh glasses has been approved by his Ophthalmic Services Committee, the body locally responsible for the administration of those services. Before they approve the supply of fresh glasses, the committee check from their own, and, when necessary, other committees' records that the person is not already in possession of glasses to the same prescription.
These arrangements ensure that duplicate pairs of glasses to the same prescription are not authorised. Similarly, no one can receive a set of dentures through the general dental service without the prior approval of the Dental Estimates Board, whose records enable it to check that a duplicate set is not issued.
That letter, I submit, indicates that there is an elaborate system of administration which, under any normal circumstances, could be relied upon when any dentist or optician was in difficulty, to decide whether an application for glasses or dentures came from a person of foreign nationality. I understand from my right hon. Friend that neither dentists nor opticians—nor, of course, doctors—like to make inquiries of their patients in the matter of personal details.
I do submit that, when this country is facing, as it is today, a very serious financial situation, that objection is somewhat absurd especially when one has regard to the inquiries which are made by officials of British nationals in relation to a large number of services which we do give in this country. It is, surely, absurd, in those circumstances, to quibble


that opticians and dentists would feel some hesitancy in asking whether one of their clients, unknown to them and who had not a permanent address in this country, was of foreign birth or not.
It seems somewhat absurd when one remembers the detailed questions of Public Assistance Board officials, Income Tax inspectors, and in relation to scholarships and a whole variety of awards and services that can be obtained from this country that have to be answered. With that in mind, it seems somewhat ludicrous to suggest that it is in bad taste or embarrassing to ask a dentist or optician to find out from a client exactly whether he is entitled to dentures, spectacles, or a wig under our National Health Service.
When one looks back on our war-time history, the difficulty of some of the administrative actions taken by Government Departments makes this particular problem pale into insignificance. Having regard to the procedure which has to be followed by dentists and opticians and the co-operation that has to exist between them and their local committees, I feel strongly that it should be possible to devise a scheme that would ensure that foreigners pay the full charges for the particular articles mentioned in this Bill.
In view of the very strong opinion the Conservative Party held last year I hope that my right hon. Friend will be prepared to reconsider his position in this matter. Supposing that a dentist is faced with a client who is a British subject and who has not a permanent address, I say it is quite obvious that the dentist would have to find out his permanent address; for one does not walk into a dentist's or an optician's and walk out with dentures or spectacles. There has to be a lapse of time. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend says that one does with a wig. That may be; I am basing my argument on dentures and spectacles.
If the dentist cannot find out to his own satisfaction whether his client is British or of foreign birth, it is possible to refer the case to the local committee, which can check up as it would do in the case of an application for a duplicate pair of dentures, and see what the background of the applicant really is.
I want to make another point. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite have

done nothing all night but complain about people on this side not making speeches. Now that I am on my feet I intend to finish my speech.
On the question of the approach, is there anything so very disrespectful in asking somebody what his or her nationality is? If they are Frenchwomen or Americans or women from Finland, I think they should be extremely proud of being able to say so, and I cannot see that there is anything derogatory in suggesting that dentists or opticians should make some inquiries to find out whether their clients are British or foreign nationals.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary must be aware, as I am, that there is a very strong feeling in the country on this particular matter. Though I am not expecting an answer tonight—[HON. MEMBERS "Why not?"] This happens to be my Amendment and I can deal with it as I like. I do not accept dictation from hon. Members opposite as to how I conduct my affairs.
In conclusion, I am not expecting a final reply tonight. I want the Minister to take a little more time and consider this proposal, having regard to the fact that if he can find some way of imposing a charge on foreign nationals, it would give great satisfaction to very many people in this country.

Mr. Crookshank: I have been a Member of this House with the hon. Lady for many years and I have always admired her courage. For her, with her voice in the obviously painful condition that it is in tonight, to get up and make a speech in this Committee at this time of the night is a very courageous action on which we all compliment her.
I recognise that there is considerable feeling in different parts of the Committee on this question of foreigners getting benefits under the Health Service, for which they have not contributed in any form. On the other hand, there are others who take the view that it is a good thing for this country to be able to provide for those who happen to come to its shores. I have listened to the hon. Lady's speech and have read her Amendment, and I see she describes the people upon whom she would wish to have these charges placed as nationals of foreign countries.
I have some doubt as to what she has in mind. Does she mean a foreigner, because he is a foreigner, or does she mean a non-resident of the United Kingdom who, because of his long absence from the country, has not paid anything by way of contributions on his card or in taxes? Earlier in our discussions, I did say that the contributions on the cards do not by any means pay for the Health Service, and that it is financed to the extent of 90 per cent. by the taxpayers.
If my hon. Friend means non-contributors, I must remind her that she would then exclude certain elements whom I am sure she does not wish to exclude. She said that she was not prepared to accept the answer that there were administrative difficulties. In fact, she went so far as to pay me a compliment by saying that she did not accept that it was beyond my wit to find a way out. I must admit that it has been beyond my wit so far, though I appreciate the compliment that she pays me in believing that I can do it.
12.30 a.m.
If my hon. Friend means non-residents—persons who happen to be in this country at a particular moment but have neither contributed nor are taxpayers—let us be clear where that leads. That would mean exclusion from these benefits of any Commonwealth or Empire visitor, or Irish people, who in other respects get the benefits of all other arrangements in this country.
One would also have to exclude foreigners who were in this country either temporarily or permanently, because they would be nationals of foreign countries. Those who had not taken out papers of citizenship would, under the hon. Member's wording, be prevented from getting benefits from the Health Service, although they had been contributors, because—

Mrs. Braddock: Are there not reciprocal arrangements?

Miss Ward: As the right hon. Gentleman poses a question to me, and I have the greatest admiration for his skill in debate, I mean exactly what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he supported an

Amendment to the National Health Service (Amendment) Act last year. If my right hon. Friend will do me the honour to read further down the Order Paper, he will find that I have put down a variety of Amendments to be quite sure that I get one which is in order.

Mr. David Logan: I should like to ask the Minister whether we have power tonight to accept such an insertion? Have we not reciprocal arrangements, which are binding in regard to these benefits, and what will the position be if we accept this Amendment? Are we going to annul these reciprocal arrangements.

Mr. Crookshank: I imagine that this could be done, otherwise the Amendment would not have been called. I am merely pointing out some of the difficulties of the phrase, "nationals of foreign countries." I think I have made that clear. It is, therefore, a difficulty of definition to start with. Does my hon. Friend only mean people who happen to be foreign, or people who are not residents? If she means non-residents, then she is probably going to exclude a lot of people whom she does not wish to exclude.
The second difficulty, which I will put briefly, is that even if one succeeds in defining foreign nationals, one will still have the difficulty of identifying them. My hon. Friend quoted a letter which I had written to her about the safeguards which exist to prevent duplication of dentures and of glasses. They are adequate safeguards for those purposes, but none of them has anything to do with nationality.
It is with nationality, here, that we have to cope to deal with her problem effectively. So far as I can see, there is no effective way to apply any special charges upon foreigners without identifying them. I think that must be admitted. I can see no way easily to identify a foreigner from a British person. Colloquially we know that so and so is a Frenchman or French lady, or a Belgian, but one does not know that the most French-looking lady, or even the lady with the most French-sounding name, does not happen to be a perfectly good British subject.

Miss Ward: One can ask her.

Mr. Crookshank: One could ask her certainly; but if she were sufficiently attractive one might get an unexpected reply. [Laughter.]
Of course, we could not run the administration of this great Service on the hit-and-miss principle of just asking people what their nationality was, particularly as whoever did the asking might very well offend a great number of British people who for some reason or other might be thought by their questioners to be foreigners. British people certainly would not like to be asked those questions when they were contributors and taxpayers in this country.
Had we not abolished the identity card, it might have been quite different, but one of the acts in which I was directly concerned, in which I took most pleasure, was the recent abolition of the identity card. When I did it, I remember telling my hon. Friend, when she had some discussion with me on this matter, that if we did the one we could not do the other. On the whole, I thought it was more desirable, and would certainly save more money, to abolish the identity card, which had become useless for the purposes for which it was originated, than to keep it on in order, possibly, to impose a charge on certain people who were nationals of foreign countries. That is the brief answer to my hon. Friend.
I quite agree with her that there are many people who take exception to people coming into this country and benefiting by our social legislation if they are not contributors, but there are many who do not take that view and I do not know which side is in the majority. There is no possible way of telling. But on the whole—although I can produce no figures, because, obviously, if I could do that, it would mean that I had found a way of identifying the foreign national from the British, and I have admitted that that is not possible—I very much doubt if there is any very great amount of abuse by foreign nationals in this matter.
People who happen to fall ill in this country can get treatment in sudden emergency, and so on, but I find it hard to believe that on the whole there is any great abuse of these services by persons deliberately coming to this country for the purpose. Therefore, while there are many people who feel very strongly about this, the fact remains that in present circumstances,

for the reasons I have given, I find great difficulty in arriving at a proper distinction between the British non-resident and the foreigner coming to this country which would not cause a great deal of trouble. Secondly, owing to the abolition of the identity card, I cannot see any easy way by which one could get firm proof that a particular person was a foreign national without having to ask exactly the same questions of every single person who applied for benefit under the Health Service. The masses of our people would be very indignant if they were automatically asked, when they sought benefit under the Service, whether or not they were foreign nationals.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will realise that I am not out of sympathy with the case which she pleads but that, simply, I see no possible way in present circumstances, especially since the Identity Card was abolished, of being able to do what she desires to have done. For that reason, I hope that the Committee will not agree to the Amendment.

Mr. Chetwynd: Could steps be taken to see that lights are in the Lobbies before the next Division is called, so that we may see whom we are voting with?

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: Will the Minister of Works be called to attend to the matter?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): I think we might meet our difficulties when they arise, and they arise in plenty.

Sir R. Acland: The right hon. Gentleman has resisted this Amendment on purely technical grounds, but I hardly feel that it is good enough because although we join with him in congratulating the hon. Lady on her courage in contending with great personal difficulties, neverthless her Amendment seems to be a most regrettable one.
It is, simultaneously a vote-catching Amendment and the very essence of Nazism. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it is. It is vote-catching because it appeals to something in all of us to a stronger or weaker degree—the evil of xenophobia, the dislike of foreigners. This evil streak in all of us is very easily unleashed, and very easily runs riot. I remember a case in my constituency


where a group of displaced persons from Europe were put in a military camp. Surely there are no people more deserving of our sympathy than these persons.
This was at a time when cigarettes were short, and at two trade union branch meetings members got up and inquired indignantly whether it was a fact that these foreigners were receiving a free issue of 50 cigarettes a week. I promised to investigate the matter and I found that a lorry called at the camp for these people at an hour before the shops were open, took them to distant farms, and returned them to the camp after the shops were closed. They had no chance to buy cigarettes, and yet such is the xenophobia among us that this unfounded rumour passed from mouth to mouth.
I only offer that as a small example of how this anti-foreign feeling can spread, and what damage it can do. Yet the hon. Lady relies on this evil force for the popularity of her Amendment. I cannot help feeling that on the other side of the Committee there are hon. Gentlemen who are proud of the fact that foreigners coming here have enjoyed a free medical service on equal terms with us, and that under this Bill, which we deplore and they support, foreigners will only pay the same charges as we will have to, and will not be discriminated against. It may be that one makes too much of this Amendment by opposing it on any grounds of high principle. It may be that it deserves to be laughed out as something too trivial and childish to deserve consideration here.

12.45 a.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: I understand that—

Mr. Hugh Delargy: On a point of order. I think the hon. Member is below the Bar.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I would not have called the hon. Member if he was not in the Committee.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Sir I. Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Thomas, for offering me protection in this matter from the insults that are hurled at me from the other side of the Committee. I understand that several hundreds of thousands of pounds worth

of work is done by our doctors, without remuneration, in looking after persons who come to this country from overseas—

Mr. Bevan: No.

Sir I. Fraser: I understand so. I understand that these people do not become ordinary members of the doctor's register, but that, nevertheless, the duty falls upon the doctor to look after them. I believe it is asking too much of the doctors to invite—

Mr. Bevan: Nonsense.

Sir I. Fraser: —them to add to their already heavy labours by looking after an additional number of persons who happen to be here on visits from overseas. None of us would wish to do anything but welcome visitors from overseas and have them enjoy all the amenities and beauties of our country. But there does not seem to me to be any reason why we should give them free medical treatment or appliances or free hospital treatment.

Mr. Joseph T. Price: May I ask the hon. Member, in a friendly manner, how, if he applies this principle to foreign nationals who come here and fall sick, he will deal with cases of serious infection which they may bring with them?

Sir I. Fraser: I would shut them up at once. The main purpose of dealing with an infectious disease is to protect the community. The answer is simple. But where we are not concerned with the health of the community I can see no reason why these overburdened and hard-pressed doctors should give gratuitous service to people from overseas.

Mr. Bevan: I am certain that the hon. Member does not want to mislead the Committee. He has said that the visitors from overseas are treated freely by the medical profession—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order"]. I did not rise to a point of order—

The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry. I was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was on his feet on a point of order, so I called the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) to order. It may be that he wishes to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir I. Fraser: Yes, I am glad to give way.

Mr. Bevan: I thank the hon. Member for his courtesy. It is not the case that the general practitioners treat foreigners free. They are generously paid. They receive an emergency payment and, therefore, there is no gratuitous treatment of the foreigner by the general practitioner. In the case of hospitals, obviously there could be no question of gratuitous treatment because the hospital staff are paid by the State. Therefore, service to the foreigner is in no case given freely by the medical profession.

Colonel Malcolm Stoddart-Scott: We ought not to permit the right hon. Gentleman to mislead the Committee. The doctors get money from a pool to treat the people of this country. If foreigners come here and fall sick, the doctors do not get a single penny more for treating them.

Sir I. Fraser: I cannot feel that the hard-pressed, over-burdened taxpayers, whose Government cannot afford to pay higher pensions to men who have been wounded in the service of their country, should be required to look after foreigners free of charge at a time when further burdens are being placed upon the poor who live here.

Hon. Members: Oh.

The Temporary Chairman: I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee would give the hon. Member a chance to be heard. The debate on this Amendment may well continue and hon. Members may seek to catch the eye of whoever is in the Chair in order to make their contribution.

Sir I. Fraser: An hon. Member opposite made an appeal to Christianity. The good Samaritan took up the hurt passerby and cared for him. We would do that. Any person visiting this island, just like any person who lives here permanently, would be cared for in accident or emergency. There would be no question about it. But that is no reason for dealing with the ordinary ills at the expense of the taxpayer when the recipient pays no taxes or rates save those which he pays indirectly during his stay.
Why should we go out of our way to do this? The Government say that they cannot distinguish between these people.

I dare say that occasionally one would slip through. It would be possible for a man to go to Leeds for six months, to have treatment and to get a pair of spectacles and then return to France or Belgium. The next year he could stay in Manchester and get another pair of spectacles and have treatment, and thereby cause great waste in this Service. But that is no reason why we should not make a rule that visitors should pay. I am sure that most of them would pay if there was a rule that they should.
The fact that we could not check on everyone is no reason for not having a rule. I ask the Minister to try again to devise a way of operating such a system. This matter causes some irritation to our over-pressed taxpayers upon whom further burdens are being placed. They feel that by this method money is going out of the country. That is virtually what is happening today, for no reason whatever that I can see.
If I visit a friend I expect that he will treat me kindly and courteously and provide me with hospitality, but it would never occur to me that he would provide me with free medical, dental, ophthalmic or other services. Why should he? That has never been one of the normal requirements of hospitality, and I do not see why it should be now.

Miss Lee: I thought that, when the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) appeared in solitary glory in support of the Amendment, no other Member of the Committee felt that he or she wanted to give it support of any kind. I have since discovered that the Minister gives moral support to the idea behind the Amendment, and I have heard a further speech urging the Minister to make it applicable.
I do not want to deal with the actual wording of the Amendment, because the hon. Lady's keenness in this sphere has not gone to the extent of defining her terms very clearly. If we accept her general meaning, she wants visitors to pay. It has already been made clear that the administrative costs of working this scheme would amount to more than the revenue it would produce, and it seems such an ungracious thing, such a small attitude of mind, that there should not be universal rejoicing when we discover that.
After all, we have many things in this country to offer visitors, though there are times when our cooking is not of the best. There are other countries—I do not want to advertise them—which have better reputations than we have, so why do we not make the best of our assets and take pleasure in the fact that visitors, when they come here, are not only welcome, but are actually making a contribution, as, for instance, when they buy cigarettes?
I think it is most unworthy of this Committee to consider an Amendment which has already been thrown out of court on practical grounds. A rough calculation was made of how much money was involved here, and many of us have tried to work out this puzzle, which is not easy to do. On the assumption that visitors to this country would require the same medical aid as the working population here, a generous estimate would be that it would cost somewhere in the region of £200,000 overall.
Therefore, we come down to a negligible sum for something which, anyway, is not a practicable proposition, and I hope the hon. Lady will be isolated, morally as well as practically, in putting an Amendment of this kind before the Committee.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) has, at least, more courtesy than some of his companions. He has said that we ought not to give free service to those who come here from business overseas. It is, at least, important to see who were the largest group of people who came here from business overseas. Are they not the members of the Polish Resettlement Corps, who happen to be people whose business was to fight for us? I have a great deal of difficulty in regard to the Polish Resettlement Corps—

Sir Ian Fraser: Surely they are not the people we are talking about. Surely the people to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred have become residents here. They are not visitors.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Bing: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but, of course, the whole purpose of this Amendment is to include foreigners who are resident. Why otherwise?

Already the 1949 Act deals with persons who are not resident, so it is not necessary to make this provision unless one wishes to deal with foreigners who are resident in this country.

Sir Ian Fraser: I was well aware of that, but although there is the power to charge, it was never used by the previous Government. I think that was a mistake. We want now to raise this matter to get this Government to do better.

Mr. Bing: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman may wish to do that, but this is not his Amendment. It is the Amendment of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward), and she did not phrase it in that way. Obviously, the hon. Lady did not put her Amendment down unaware of the provisions of the 1949 Act, because she herself referred to them. Clearly, she chose to draft her Amendment in this form. I ask the Committee to speculate for a moment as to why this should be the only Amendment moved from the Conservative side of the Committee, other than those moved by the Front Bench. No doubt, we shall have a good opportunity of discussing the others later.
I think that some of my hon. Friends could help the hon. Gentleman in his problem in dealing with this matter, by putting down a new Clause, for which I am sure the Leader of the House will grant facilities to repeal Section 17 of the 1949 Act. That would give us an opportunity of discussing these Regulations. If, as the Leader of the House says, they cannot be enforced now, it would be foolish to have on the Statute Book a provision of which the right hon. Gentleman himself says he cannot make use. We ought to clear the Statute Book of these things. These discussions are valuable because they give rise to the opportunity of putting down a number of other Amendments to deal with the problems raised by hon. Members opposite. I am sure that my hon. Friends will facilitate this course.
Before the Committee parts with this Amendment—and I hope we shall not do so for a few moments—we ought to consider for what purpose it is put down on the Order Paper. Is it part of the successful attack launched by one hon. Member on the use of foreign labour in


the mines? That problem was successfully dealt with. The hon. Lady puts the capping stone on it. Already there are foreign workers here who feel they are not being treated as well as they should be. I do not know what arrangements hon. Members opposite have in mind, but if these foreign workers are going down the coal mines and are to be subject to the occupational hazards of mining, is it not interesting that the hon. Lady should propose, in the interests of greater coal production, that they should be deprived of medical benefits?

Miss Ward: I do not feel that it is necessary to discuss the question of Italians in the coal mines, for I think it is a fact that they have permanent ration books in this country, whereas this Amendment applies only to temporary visitors to the country.

Mr. Bing: The difficulty that the hon. Lady is in is that she has set down this Amendment—

Miss Ward: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will permit me to intervene once again, for which I thank him, may I tell him that I am in no difficulty at all.

Mr. Bing: We all admired the way in which the hon. Lady moved this Amendment, in very difficult circumstances. She has set on foot a very valuable discussion which has enabled us to define our attitude to a great many matters. We are very grateful to her for not allowing the visitation of a sore throat to prevent her moving her Amendment.
But before making her speech the hon. Lady should have read her own Amendment. I know that she takes her cue from the Minister of Health, who gets on very well without doing so; but, if she reads her own Amendment, she will see that it says
… charges … shall be made in respect of the supply of appliances to nationals of foreign countries. …
That says nothing about anybody who has, or has not, a ration book. Surely her idea about nationality is a little obscure. One does not get nationality with a ration book, and I suggest that we have here a Conservative approach to this problem—one gets one's rations somewhere else, and one belongs to that nation. To put such points is not doing justice to the Amendment.
We on this side, of course, appreciate the motion of censure on her right hon. Friend which the hon. Lady moved, because, otherwise, there is no need for the Amendment at all. Why did she move it? Doubtlessly because, as in the case of a previous Amendment discussed tonight, she was not satisfied when the Minister said he would deal with this matter by regulation. She says, "We do not trust the Minister in the matter of regulations; we believe that he is incapable of making Regulations. For six or seven months since taking office, he has been unable to devise Regulations to meet this situation, and we do not know, when he comes to think of his new Regulations, whether he will not find the same difficulties as he finds in regard to these particular ones."
That is really her expression, and I do not blame her for it, for the back benchers on that side of the Committee, as on this side, have lost confidence in the Ministers on the Front Bench, and are determined to insert into the Bill the things which they want the Minister of Health to do. They no longer accept his promises when he says he will do things by Regulation. That is a reasonable view for them to take, and he must not complain if we put down a great number of Amendments to secure the same end as the hon. Lady wants to achieve.
Why should not we tie down the Minister, as she has tried to do, by getting the words into the Act of Parliament? Not to save any money. That is not the reason, but this is a Conservative gesture of policy. Here is a very proper approach to Conservative policy, for that consists of two sides—accepting everything in general, and rejecting it always in particular. I cannot remember if it was in the last programme of the right hon. Gentleman's party that it was stated that Christianity was placed first; perhaps it was not; perhaps it was in the previous one, and was rejected because it did not win the previous election. What of Christian principles?

The Chairman: That is a little wide of this Amendment.

Mr. Bing: I would say, with great respect, Sir Charles, that there is nothing in my remarks wide of the Amendment. On the contrary, they are directed specifically to it.
I was about to say that the early Christian monasteries were founded and conducted on the principle that they made no distinction as to whom they gave aid. All the monasteries and hospitals were open to people in need, and not merely to people of a certain nationality. Sickness was a thing that afflicted all equally. This was a principle of Christianity that was understood even in the Middle Ages, but it takes the Tory back benchers to wish to reverse in an Act of Parliament even the standards of medieval Christianity.
The Minister, feeling that his party needed some popularity in the country, launched an attack on the crippled in the Bill. His back benchers, wiser, thought that that should be accompanied by an attack on the foreigner. No single fact has been produced to show that anybody has lost on this at all. The theory has gone out that some doctors have evaded the Hippocratic oath by looking after sick people who came to them without money in their pocket. This has been dealt with by regulation. It pays a doctor to treat these foreigners. One of the evil things about it is that they came to this country and got healthy. What an awful thought!
Let us see who these foreigners are. Let us suppose for a moment that there is a new Minister of Defence. We follow the normal practice and he is an American admiral; everything is tending that way. Is it suggested that he should be deprived of any medical attendance? There are a great many American troops in this country at present, and they have a great many people who come with them—camp followers and the like. They may, for all I know, be in need of medical attention. Why should the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth suddenly make an attack on these people?
We ought to hear again from the hon. Lady, or from one of the other hon. Members opposite who support her, so that we may know just exactly who these foreigners are. How are we going to deal with them? We know they cannot change their nationality by altering their ration book. Indeed, one of the first things hon. Gentlemen opposite did was to put up the fees for naturalisation: it costs about three or four years' medical attendance to get naturalised at the

moment. That means, incidentally, that those who suffered most in the war, the refugees who came to this country, are the least likely to be able to get naturalisation.
Let me put two cases to the hon. Lady and see whether she can say on what grounds one should be deprived of medical attention and one not. At about the time of the American Civil War the Vice-President of the Confederate States, Mr. Benjamin, came to this country. He became a distinguished solicitor and, it may interest the House to know, wrote a book, "Benjamin on Sale," which is the book that everybody goes to on that subject. But he never abandoned his American nationality.

The Chairman: I think that this is irrelevant.

Mr. Bing: I am directing this argument to try to elicit from the hon. Lady who has moved the first Amendment from that side—and, therefore, it is an important Amendment—who these nationals of foreign countries are. I was dealing with the fact that the hon. Lady said it could be decided by looking at their ration books. I think none on either side of the Committee accepts that view.
I now want to put one or two specific cases so that the hon. Lady will be able to state to the committee who are foreign nationals and who are not.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: When the hon. and learned Member was interrupted he was including the American Civil War in his remarks. Has he now finished with the American Civil War and come nearer to modern times?

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Bing: I was coming nearer; I was coming to this Committee itself.
Supposing a man wishes to abandon his nationality. Perhaps he feels he would like to settle down in this country, having married, and that his ration book would be more secure if he changed his nationality and became a British subject. He is not to be penalised, but the man who, for patriotic reasons, retains his nationality will be charged under the hon. Lady's Amendment. Has the hon. Lady ever considered who are foreigners? Does she not know, for example—

Miss Ward: I would point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that if the American to whom he referred changed his nationality and became a nationalised British subject, he would then contribute to the National Health Service.

Mr. Bing: That is more a matter for the Finance Bill and, no doubt, she will put down equally helpful Amendments on that Bill. People living in this country, irrespective of their nationality, and domiciled here pay Income Tax and every other sort of tax. There are some people here who are Russian citizens, Stateless citizens and all sorts of citizens who have come here and have lived here since childhood. They do not even speak the language of the country where they come from, but they do not happen to be British nationals. They are nationals of a foreign country.
Why should men who contribute Income Tax live here and pay every tax for which they are liable be deprived of the benefits of this Service while somebody who happens to be British, but who went abroad because he did not want to participate in the war and who has lived abroad for some considerable time, during a short visit to this country can have all the appliances and everything else? That is, in effect, what the hon. Lady's suggestion is, and when we have the first Amendment from the Government side of the Committee it is only reasonable for the Committee to spend a few moments considering seriously what has been moved. That is where I blame the Minister. He tried to laugh it off, but it is not a laughing matter. It is the only Amendment that hon. Members opposite can think of.
I am coming back to deal with the question of who are foreigners and who are not. Inhabitants of the Protectorates raise a difficult question. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Northern Ireland?"] My hon. Friend asks me, "What about Northern Ireland?" but I do not want to deal with that here. People who are citizens of Protectorates are, technically speaking, foreign citizens. Only the other day we had a debate on Seretse Khama. We have deprived him of the chieftainship. If we adopted the hon. Lady's Amendment we would deprive him of the benefits of the Health

Service as well. No doubt that course would commend itself to the hon. Member for Morecombe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser).

Sir I. Fraser: That is a most outrageous suggestion. To start with, the view taken about a debate of a week or two ago has no bearing upon my view in this matter. The question of charging in such cases, which I put to the Committee, was not strictly addressed to the terms of this Amendment. I was making the point that those who are here as residents and are taxed should be entitled to the service and that transit visitors from overseas should not.

Mr. Bing: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot get away from supporting an Amendment on the ground that he meant something different. To take the case a step further, Seretse Khama's sister is a nurse in a hospital in this country. She would be deprived of free service if she felt sick. That is the sort of colonial policy which comes from hon. Members opposite. That is the ideological basis of the sort of Amendments moved by hon. Members opposite. I believe that they do understand the nature of the Amendments which they move. I think it would be wrong for the Committee to suppose otherwise. I think it is reasonable for us to look at them and to accept them in the spirit in which they are put forward. It is no good for them to say that they meant entirely different words and different proceedings, because if they do, those things are already in the Act.
The only question we are considering is why, when there is power in the Act to charge fully for everyone who comes from overseas and is non-resident in this country, we should relate this to foreigners. I do not want to delay the Committee. Up to now I have not spoken in this debate, much as I would have liked to do so. I took part in all the debates on the previous health Bills. I only speak on this occasion because, in 1949, I spoke on the same Amendment in reply to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). He moved an Amendment then, and some compromise was made which now is not good enough for some of his extreme hon. Friends. When speaking on that occasion I made


a comparison which, if the Committee will allow, I will make again.
I mentioned that I was in the Library doing some research and came across an old book which, it seemed, was not much used. I opened it, looking for a precedent. I came across one, and that was where the Amendment came from. It was a most extraordinary story. It was about a foreigner who went on a journey to Jericho and fell among thieves. He was seriously injured.

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is getting rather wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Bing: I was wondering, Sir Charles, whether you would take that view. But I think that you were in the Chair when I made the same point in the former debate. If I was in order then I thought that I might make the same point tonight.
However, if you say that I am getting wide of the terms of the Amendment, I will read what I said to the House on that occasion. I then said that I happened to be making, in the Library, some researches on another matter, and I went on:
I came across an old book in the reference department, which contained a passage from which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite and probably some of his hon. Friends, who have put this case in a much more raucous manner than he has done, probably drew their moral. The passage in this particular book dealt with a stranger and foreigner who was on a journey to a place called Jericho. In the course of this journey he fell among thieves and was wounded and left for dying. Then it happened that two members of the ruling class passed, and they, realising that in the interests of national economy they should restrict their personal expenditure, passed him by on the other side. It happened that a little later there came some untutored fellow from an outlandish part. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 632–3.]
—which I said, at the time, would roughly correspond with Wales—

The Chairman: If I allowed this last time, I could not have been doing my duty. I would ask the hon. and learned Member to keep more closely to the Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), in his speech, referred on several occasions to the application of

Christian principles and also to the Good Samaritan. We are discussing an Amendment of a very wide nature, which, if it were carried, would impose upon all foreign nationals charges under the Health Service. With all respect, I cannot see anything in what my hon. and learned Friend said which is irrelevant to that question nor how otherwise a previous occupant of the Chair could permit the argument, of the same nature, which my hon. and learned Friend is now rebutting.

The Chairman: I, personally, think that it is irrelevant.

Mr. Bevan: With all respect, Sir Charles, as you know, I have every respect for the Chair, but in this case it does seem to me that the Ruling you have given is directly contradictory to the Ruling given by previous occupants of the Chair this evening.

The Chairman: I did not have the pleasure of hearing the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). I have no doubt that among various Chairmen there may be various views, but in my view this is irrelevant.

Mr. Attlee: With great respect, it seems to me that there is rather a tendency to deal with irrelevance rather because of the nature of the argument than whether it is strictly relevant. Surely a discussion as to the proper treatment of foreigners by people in this country is strictly relevant to an Amendment which is dealing with expenditure of the Health Service on foreigners. It is very difficult to see how this is irrelevant. It is, surely, an admirable precedent.

The Chairman: If it were carried to extremes, everything would be relevant.

Mr. Bevan: Nonsense.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Further to that point of order. Is it suggested by anybody that the man going down to Jericho was a foreigner?

Mr. Delargy: Yes.

Mr. Attlee: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember that this was a case of a person of one nationality being kindly treated by a person of another nationality. They were foreigners in respect to each other.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I will bow to the Leader of the Opposition on almost any subject, but on the Scriptures I do not take his view. The parable was strictly irrelevant and had nothing to do with the question under discussion.

Sir I. Fraser: On a point of order.

Mr. Delargy: Since one Member is correcting another on interpretation—

The Chairman: Order. I am calling the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) on a point of order.

Sir I. Fraser: I am referring to the original point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). His point was that as I made some reference to Christianity and Good Samaritans, it must, therefore, be proper for the long narrative by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) to be read. Those who were present will recall that my reference to this matter was extremely brief and related to an interruption which came from the other side of the Committee.

Mr. Delargy: Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot)—

Mr. W. Nally: Otherwise known as Pontius Pilate.

1.30 a.m.

The Chairman: We are getting rather wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Delargy: I cannot let the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove get away with it. I have not said a word yet.

The Chairman: I do not see how these things are points of order. I stopped the hon. Gentleman because I thought he was irrelevant.

Mr. Delargy: I must apologise, Sir Charles, I was under the impression that you had called me.

The Chairman: I did call the hon. Gentleman on a point of order.

Mr. Bing: I was going myself to rise to a point of order. I see, on consulting HANSARD again, that you were not in the Chair on that occasion, and I would not

like it to be thought that you were in any way inconsistent, Sir Charles.
I appreciate the position of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). He began reading the parable, found it not to his liking, and did not continue. Otherwise, he would not have misread his context. He is far too good a churchman for that.
I should have thought this was a problem of Christian charity, and I would have thought it was in order to refer to the Good Samaritan. It is all very well to put Christian principles into your programme but when it comes to succouring your partners in their hour of need, or looking after those people working in the mines, or the homeless or wretched seeking succour here then, of course, hon. Gentlemen opposite feel it might cost a fraction of a farthing. In Guernsey they have a coin called a double, worth an eighth of a penny. The Government might introduce it here to express the amount of damage done to the national economy by this act of Christian charity.
I hope that those hon. Gentlemen who support the hon. Lady will have the courage of their convictions. Whatever we may think of her opinions at least in this she differs from her hon. Friends. She expresses them. I hope other hon. Gentlemen will express their views, and that the Patronage Secretary will not try to cut out entirely the expression of backbench opinions in his own party, however undesirable. It would be very valuable for his Front Bench to hear them. Perhaps there is one who opposes the Amendment? Will he not get up, or is the Patronage Secretary going to move the Closure so that this breach of their unanimity on anti-foreignism is not exposed? This is a serious and important Amendment, and I trust that we shall have a full and candid debate.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: rose in his place, and claimed to move," That the Question be now put."

Hon. Members: Shame!

Mr. Bevan: Leave the Chair, Sir Charles. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. It is scandalous.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 242.

Division No. 76.]
AYES
[1.37 a.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Gammons, L. D.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Alport, C. J. M.
Godber, J. B.
Maude, Angus


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maudling, R.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Gough, C. F. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Anstruther-Gray, Maj. W. J.
Gower, H. R.
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Arbuthnot, John
Graham, Sir Fergus
Mellor, Sir John


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Molson, A. H. E.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Monckton, Rt. Han. Sir Walter


Baker, P. A. D.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Harden, J. R. E.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Banks, Col. C.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicholls, Harmar


Barber, A. P. L.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Baxter, A. B.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Heald, Sir Lionel
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Heath, Edward
Oakshott, H. D.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Odey, G. W.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Higgs, J. M. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Birch, Nigel
Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Bishop, F. P.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Osborne, C.


Black, C. W.
Hollis, M. C.
Partridge, E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bossom, A. C.
Hope, Lord John
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bowen, E. R.
Hopkinson, Henry
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pitman, I. J.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Horobin, I. M.
Powell, J. Enoch


Brains, B. R.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, H.)
Profumo, J. D.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Raikes, H. V.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hurd, A. R.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Redmayne, M.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Bullard, D. G.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Robson-Brown, W.


Burden, F. F. A.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Roper, Sir Harold


Carson, Hon. E.
Kaberry, D.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cary, Sir Robert
Keeling, Sir Edward
Russell, R. S.


Channon, H.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Lambton, Viscount
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Cole, Norman
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott, R. Donald


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Shepherd, William


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Leather, E. H. C.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Cranborne, Viscount
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lindsay, Martin
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Crouch, R. F.
Linstead, H. N.
Snadden, W. McN.


Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Soames, Capt. C.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Deedes, W. F.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Stevens, G. P.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Low, A. R. W.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.
Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)
Storey, S.


Donner, P. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
McAdden, S. J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Drewe, C.
McCallum, Major D.
Studholme, H. G.


Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Summers, G. S.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Sutcliffe, H.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
McKibbin, A. J.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Fell, A.
Maclay, Hon. John
Teeling, W.


Finlay, Graeme
Maclean, Fitzroy
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fisher, Nigel
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Fort, R.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Foster, John
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Tilney John


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Touche, G. C.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lansdale)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Turner, H. F. L.


Gage, C. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Turton, R. H.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Marples, A. E.
Tweedsmuir, Lady







Vane, W. M. F.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
White, Baker (Canterbury)
Wood, Hon. R.


Vosper, D. F.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
York, C.


Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)



Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Wills, G.
Brigadier Mackeson and Mr. Butcher.


Watkinson, H. A.






NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Forman, J. C.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Adams, Richard
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morley, R.


Albu, A. H.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mort, D. L.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Gibson, C. W.
Moyle, A.


Awbery, S. S.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mulley, F. W.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Murray, J. D.


Baird, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Nally, W.


Balfour, A.
Grey, C. F.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Bence, C. R.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
O'Brien, T.


Bann, Wedgwood
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Orbach, M.


Benson, G.
Grimond, J.
Oswald, T.


Beswick, F.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Padley, W. E.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, Rt. Han. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, W. W.
Pannell, Charles


Blenkinsop, A.
Hannan, W.
Pargiter, G. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Hargreaves, A.
Parker, J.


Boardman, H.
Hastings, S.
Paton, J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, A.


Bowden, H. W.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Peart, T. F.


Bowles, F. G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Herbison, Miss M.
Popplewell, E.


Brockway, A. F.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Porter, G.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hobson, C. R.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holman, P.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Proctor, W. T.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Houghton, Douglas
Pryde, D. J.


Burke, W. A.
Hoy, J. H.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Rankin, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Reeves, J.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Carmichael, J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Champion, A. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Chapman, W. D.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Janner, B.
Ross, William


Clunie, J.
Jager, George (Goole)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Cocks, F. S.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Coldrick, W.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Short, E. W.


Collick, P. H.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Cook, T. F.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Snow, J. W.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Keenan, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cullen, Mrs. A.
King, Dr. H. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Steele, T.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lewis, Arthur
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lipton, Lt.-Col, M.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Deer, G.
Logan, D. G.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Delargy, H. J.
MacColl, J. E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Dodds, N. N.
McGhee, H. G.
Swingler, S. T.


Donnelly, D. L.
McInnes, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Edelman, M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thurtle, Ernest


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Timmons, J.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Tomney, F.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Manuel, A. C.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Ewart, R.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Viant, S. P.


Fernyhough, E.
Mayhew, C. P.
Wallace, H. W.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Mellish, R. J.
Watkins, T. E.


Fienburgh, W.
Messer, F.
Weitzman, D.


Finch, H. J.
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Follick, M.
Monslow, W.
West, D. G.


Foot, M. M.
Moody, A. S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John







White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Wyatt, W. L.


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Yates, V. F.


Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Wilkins, W. A.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)



Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

Mr. Royle and Mr. Wigg.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 22; Noes, 237.

Division No. 77.]
AYES
[1.48 a.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Robson-Brown, W.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Fell, A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Harden, J. R. E.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)



Hirst, Geoffrey
Raikes, H. V.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Lewis and Mr. Swingler.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
King, Dr. H. M.


Adams, Richard
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Albu, A. H.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lindgren, G. S.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Ewart, R.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Awbery, S. S.
Fernyhough, E.
Logan, D. G.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Field, Capt. W. J.
MacColl, J. E.


Baird, J.
Fienburgh, W.
McGhee, H. G.


Balfour, A.
Finch, H. J.
McInnes, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
McLeavy, F.


Bence, C. R.
Follick, M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Benn, Wedgwood
Foot, M. M.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Benson, G.
Forman, J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Beswick, F.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Blackburn, F.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Gibson, C. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Blyton, W. R.
Glanville, James
Manuel, A. C.


Boardman, H.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mayhew, C. P.


Bowden, H. W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mellish, R. J.


Bowles, F. G.
Grey, C. F.
Messer, F.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mikardo, Ian


Brockway, A. F.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mitchison, G. R.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Monslow, W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Grimond, J.
Moody, A. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morley, R.


Burke, W. A.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mort, D. L.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hannan, W.
Moyle, A.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hargreaves, A.
Mulley, F. W.


Carmichael, J.
Hastings, S.
Murray, J. D.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hayman, F. H.
Nally, W.


Champion, A. J.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Chapman, W. D.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
O'Brien, T.


Clunie, J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Orbach, M.


Cocks, F. S.
Hobson, C. R.
Oswald, T.


Coldrick, W.
Holman, P.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Collick, P. H.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Cook, T. F.
Houghton, Douglas
Pannell, Charles


Corbet Mrs. Freda
Hoy, J. H.
Pargiter, G. A.


Cove, W. G.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Parker, J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paton, J.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, A.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Peart, T. F.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Popplewell, E.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Porter, G.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Janner, B.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jeger, George (Goole)
Proctor, W. T.


Deer, G.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Pryde, D. J.


Delargy, H. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Dodds, N. N.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Rankin, John


Donnelly, D. L.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Reeves, J.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Rhodes, H.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edelman, M.
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)




Ross, William
Sylvester, G. O.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Royle, C.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wigg, George


Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wilcock, Croup Capt. C. A. B.


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Wilkins, W. A.


Short, E. W.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Timmons, J.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Tomney, F.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Snow, J. W.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Sorensen, R. W.
Wallace, H. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Watkins, T. E.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Sparks, J. A.
Weitzman, D.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Steele, T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Wyatt, W. L.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall)
Yates, V. F.


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
West, D. G.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John



Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Dr. Stross and Mr. Bing.


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Marquand: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
I move this Motion for the traditional and usual reason, to give the Government an opportunity to express their intention. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not understand what hon. Gentlemen are shouting about. This is an hour at which few of us—there are some notable exceptions—feel at our best. We have had thorough discussion on sound and well-founded Amendments, and objective consideration has been given to them. Perhaps we could return to that atmosphere of calm consideration on an important Bill if our discussions were resumed this afternoon rather than that we should go on at this early hour of the morning.

Mr. Crookshank: Coincidences are remarkable things. I was just about to get up to ask leave to report Progress for the very reasons which the right hon. Gentleman has just given. When we suspended the rule at half-past three, or thereabouts, yesterday afternoon, I expressed the hope that, with good will on both sides, we could make sufficient progress to enable us to finish the first Clause. But there seems no likelihood of that and, if I might say so, the atmosphere of the last hour has not been conducive to making progress. A number of Amendments to the first Clause have still to be debated, but it is getting late; it would be a good thing if we went home now, and I accept the Motion.

Mr. Bing: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what are the Government's intentions about this Bill. If we only make this sort of progress, we shall not get very far at all. I hoped

that the right hon. Gentleman would tell us that the Bill would be either entirely abandoned or that it would be referred to a committee of some kind—a suggestion that proved so useful on a previous occasion, after first being discarded by the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps it might be a Departmental committee, because that is probably favoured by Members opposite and I do not wish to stand on ceremony.
Before the Committee parts with this Motion, we ought to consider whether, now the party opposite has lost its mandate entirely for carrying out legislation, the time of the House as a whole should be wasted on this controversial material. I hope that before the discussion closes we shall have a word or two from the Patronage Secretary about his future intentions, because the Committee ought not to be left in doubt. We ought to know whether the whole business is to be abandoned and where we stand.

2.0 a.m.

The Chairman: Would Members please go behind the Bar? They must not stand inside the Bar.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I must confess to a feeling of profound disappointment at the alacrity shown by the Leader of the House in accepting the Motion moved by my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Health. We have just scratched the surface of the problem, and it is a grave reflection on the tenacity and will power of the Government that at such an early stage in our proceedings they should be willing to adjourn the Committee. There is so little progress to report that we should be stultifying ourselves if we accepted the proposal without further ado.
I suggest that there are sufficient of us here this morning who have not yet had an opportunity of taking part in the discussion to justify our continuing. I am one of them. I want to register my firm protest against the coalition that seems to have sprung up suddenly. I hope there are enough of us willing to carry on the discussion so that when we do move to report Progress there will be some progress to report.

Mr. Richard Adams: Before we part with this Motion there is need for a further important statement from the Minister of Health. In our discussion the right hon. Gentleman indicated that he fully supported, in principle, the Amendment moved by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward). In view of the fact that the Amendment has been defeated by an overwhelming—

The Chairman: We cannot discuss any Amendment at all. We can discuss only that I do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Adams: In view of the fact, Sir Charles, that the Amendment was heavily defeated by the Committee we should be told by the right hon. Gentleman when he intends to hand in his resignation. Surely it is entirely in keeping with constitutional precedent that where a Minister states that he favours a certain course of action and the House or Committee heavily defeats it, it is customary for the Minister to place his resignation at the disposal of the Prime Minister. I should have thought that before we rise the Minister would give us some indication of the course on which he intends to proceed.
There is one other point to which I should draw attention and that is that we on this side of the Committee are in some predicament in knowing how the Tory Party are to act now. Does the vote of 22 represent the official Tory Party policy, or are they some small dissentient group, which must be classed with the dissentient group on the Excess Profits Levy and on the Motion relating to textiles which has appeared on the Order Paper? Is this a further sign that the Tory Party are breaking up into a series of small groups, which are quite incapable of conducting the affairs of this country.
I would draw attention to one fact that happened during the course of the Division. I do not know whether it will be recorded in HANSARD tomorrow, but a member of Her Majesty's Government, who shall be nameless, rushed into the Division Lobby to support the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward). What state of affairs are we coming to when members of the Cabinet and others do not know which way to vote on these important issues?
I must agree with my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Health in suggesting that we should report Progress in the very near future because of the lateness of the hour, but we must also remember that the Government Front Bench have shown that they are quite incapable of conducting this Bill through the Committee. Their back-benchers, throughout the whole of the day, had no contribution to make to the Bill at all until we reached the last Amendment, when the only two back-benchers who spoke showed that they were completely at variance with the whole of the Government Front Bench except the Minister of Health, who said he supported their point of view. That is the state of affairs that exists, and I agree that it is time that the Committee adjourned; but before we adjourn we should have an explanation from the Minister of Health of the constitutional position.

Mr. Julian Snow: I, personally, must express my disappointment that this debate is to be curtailed. I should like to draw attention to one point. If I can use a gunnery expression—my recollections of gunnery are now rather vague—if I turn my line of vision 180 degrees, I can see, peeping rather coyly from behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill). According to the latest news which has come in on the tape, we have gained five seats on the local authority at Luton. Would it not be a very desirable thing to hear the voice of the hon. Member once more before he reverts to telling us about little Willie's toothache?

Mr. Michael Stewart: I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Adams), that we should receive a statement from the Minister of Health before we leave this morning. In the first place,


statements from the right hon. Gentleman are always entertaining. In the last Parliament, when the position of the two parties was reversed, there was no hon. Member more alert to leap to the Despatch Box than the right hon. Gentleman in order to point out that the Government of the day had deviated from the strictist constitutional propriety. In view of his great record as a preventer of constitutional improprieties, he, above all others, should be making clear what is his own position and what are the Government's intentions.

Mr. G. Brown: He is not even listening.

Mr. Stewart: As my right hon. Friend says, the right hon. Gentleman is not even listening.

Mr. Brown: There is no courtesy at all.

Mr. Stewart: He is consulting another right hon. Gentleman who represents one of the divisions in the county of Kent. So does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. Reference has been made to the unfortunate position of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), but similar considerations apply to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. Who can tell that what has begun in Chislehurst may not spread to the neighbouring district of Bromley, and even Beckenham?

Mr. Brown: The sooner the better.

Mr. Stewart: We see on the Front Bench opposite three representatives of a county which is rapidly throwing off any allegiance to the Conservative Party, and sitting unhappily among them the Minister of Health, who is piloting a Bill the ultimate destination of which neither he nor any member of the Government can now foresee. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that when the right hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as Leader of the House, first informed us that this Bill would be coming up for consideration he was unable to say when that consideration would start. On that occasion, Mr. Speaker pointed out to hon. Members who were pressing for an answer that, after all, if the Minister did not know he could not answer.
It was impressed upon all of us that the right hon. Gentleman, apparently did

not know when consideration of the Bill was to start. That has been revealed to us by the mere efflux of time; but can the right hon. Gentleman, now answer the more serious question of when consideration of this Bill will cease? [Laughter.] I rejoice to see that I have succeeded a little in cheering up the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brown: He shakes his head. He is still miserable.

Mr. Stewart: At the time to which I am referring it also appeared that the right hon. Gentleman did not then know who would be introducing the Bill. That, also, has been revealed with the passage of time. But, can he tell us who will be piloting the Bill when it reaches the end of its course? We are being treated by the right hon. Gentleman with the utmost flippancy.
Here we have a grave constitutional issue. An Amendment is moved to which the right hon. Gentleman gives his blessing, though it is true that he gave it in a somewhat sedentary fashion. That Amendment is then emphatically rejected by the Committee. As a member of the party on this side of the Committee I am bound to dissociate myself from the view and opinion of my two hon. Friends who saw fit to act as Tellers; because I am bound to regard this, as a majority of this Committee has regarded it, as a most unfortunate Amendment. We have an Amendment to which the Minister—

The Chairman: The Committee has dealt with the Amendment.

Mr. Stewart: I bow to your Ruling, Sir Charles. We have, as you say, dealt with it as it deserved. I was drawing the Committee's attention to the situation which arises out of the way in which the Committee dealt with the Amendment. The way in which the Amendment was dealt with calls into question the position of the Minister, and of the Government. One of my hon. Friends, I believe it was the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central suggested that the situation might be met by the resignation of the Minister of Health. That does not seem to me to go to the root of the matter, for when the right hon. Gentleman spoke, he spoke not merely for himself, but as a representative of the Government. It is not his resignation which is called for by the defeat inflicted


on the Amendment brought forward by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward), whose absence at this critical juncture we all regret; it is the resignation of the whole Government.

Mr. G. Brown: What a Government.

2.15 a.m.

Mr. Stewart: If we are to leave tonight without an authoritative statement of the—

Mr. Brown: Where is the Prime Minister?

Mr. Stewart: —Government's immediate future and intentions—its ultimate future and the ultimate destination of many of its Members is all too clear—not only with regard to the Bill, but with regard to the whole of its mangled and discredited policy, the Committee will have been treated with a disrespect which on previous occasions the Minister of Health, when in opposition, would have been the first to deplore.

Sir R. Acland: When my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Health moved his Motion, I am sure that he would be the first to agree that he moved it as a formality. He was obliged, as a formality, to throw in a few perfunctory words in support of the idea that the Chairman should report Progress and ask leave to sit again. Had there been any other way of asking the Leader of the House what his intentions were in relation to an Amendment, for which he had expressed his strong approval and which has just been defeated, that other way would, I am sure, have been adopted. My right hon. Friend moved the Motion solely because that was the only way of asking for a statement from the right hon. Gentleman and from the Government.
As the supreme purpose of his moving his Motion has been defeated by the refusal of the Leader of the House to make any statement, I would rather suggest—it may seem an impertinence from the back benches—to my right hon. Friend that he might ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw his Motion in order that we should continue to discuss and to make progress with the Bill, which we on this side are more than ready to do, all the more so as we have just learned that the counties of

Cumberland and Northumberland have been won for Labour. In these circumstances, I hope that my right hon. Friend will ask leave to withdraw his Motion. If it is then pressed from the other side, we shall vote against it in the hope that we shall defeat it and continue with our discussion.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Orders of the Day — ROAD HAULAGE UNDERTAKINGS (ACQUISITION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Oakshott.]

2.22 a.m.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I desire to bring before the House the direction of the Ministry of Transport to the British Transport Commission that the acquisition of road haulage undertakings by that body should be suspended for a period of six months. I should like to quote the words used by the Home Secretary on 12th November last which indicated for the first time that this action had been taken.
If the Commission were to acquire any more road haulage undertakings at a time when the Government policy is to facilitate the expansion of private road haulage activities, it would obviously not only cause hardship but be contrary to common sense. I am glad, therefore, to inform the House that the Road Haulage Executive have delivered notices to operators whose acquisition is pending, offering them, if they wish, a postponement of the date of transfer for six months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 726.]
At that time the Transport Commission were negotiating with 95 road haulage undertakings for the acquisition of their undertakings, and as a result of this direction negotiations on the part of 63 of them have been suspended for six months. But, in addition, the field is very much wider than that because there are 6,807 original or substitute permits in force under the Act which although they do not terminate until 1954, nevertheless are permits held by private haulage operators who really want to know where they stand in this matter. This standstill order has been in existence now for five months and only four weeks remain before the period will have expired.
I appeal to the Minister not to renew that direction when it expires in four weeks' time. The reason I ask him to do that is because this action by the Government tends to undermine the foundation of the Transport Commission's organisation. It causes great uncertainty among those charged with the responsibility of the transport organisation of the country, and it must slow down those important measures necessary to integrate road and rail transport.
I would remind the Minister that for 25 years this internecine warfare has raged between road and rail and has been keenly but unfairly fought. The railways have had to carry heavy capital charges for acquiring and maintaining their track. That burden is being maintained at the present time and runs into a considerable sum. Road haulage is faced with no such capital charge. The roads are there for them to use. Unrestricted road haulage during the past 25 years has, economically speaking, brought the railways to their knees. That happened before the war and is threatened again if the proposal of the Minister is maintained.
Commission after commission and conference after conference have inquired into the problem and have come to the conclusion that the only solution is the co-ordination of road and rail transport, and that the competitive system between road and rail must be abandoned in favour of co-operation. I would refer the Minister to the final Report of the Royal Commission on Transport in 1930. I know it is a long time ago, but certain fundamental principles were then laid down which apply with equal force today.
The Commission expressed the view that for the main business of transport the railways were indispensable. The nation could not afford to place that capital on the scrap heap or even render it partially unremunerative. The aim should be to harmonise and co-ordinate the newer and older forms of transport with the object of obtaining the maximum advantage. They went on to say they were satisfied that
unification in some shape or form was necessary in order to reach complete co-ordination of transport.
I would remind the Minister that in 1938 the warfare between road and rail had reached a climax. The railways

went to the then Minister of Transport with what was known as the "square deal" proposal. They urged the Minister to repeal the statutory regulation on charges. In other words, they asked the Minister to give the railways the freedom to accept or reject traffic as they thought fit, and to fix their own charges for conveyance. They asked to be placed on all-fours with the road haulage transport organisation which was then in private hands, as to acceptance and charging of traffic.
The Minister referred this proposal to the Transport Advisory Council. He clearly indicated to them that he was inclined to the view that, in existing circumstances, there was prima facie a case for some material relaxation of existing statutory Regulations provided that due regard was had to the ultimate objective of the co-ordination of all forms of transport.
The present Minister is trying to reverse engines. He is acting in the face of all the experience and expert advice that has come to us in the past 25 years. Fortunately for the country, in 1947 we had a Government who carried out in the Transport Act those principles advocated over the past 25 years. It was the obvious and logical step to take, but the Minister's present policy is not the integration of road and rail traffic but the disintegration of what has already been built up by the Transport Commission. He is heading for a relapse to the chaos of the inter-war years.
The Transport Commission, in three years, has great achievements to its credit. Among other things, it has built up the finest road haulage organisation to be found in any country. That has been built up on the basis, laid down by experience in the past 25 years, of co-operation, co-ordination and integration with rail transport and, to some extent, with the docks and inland waterways. This great road haulage organisation possesses 41,305 vehicles and 3,005 trailers. Last year it covered 765,000,000 miles, and traffic carried, excluding vehicles let out on contract, was just under 47 million tons.
That brought a revenue to the Commission of £77,398,000. This great organisation has been operated by 80,245 staff employed in the undertaking. In all quarters it is acknowledged by those


who know and understand the nation's transport problems that the road haulage organisation is a fine system doing a grand job of work for the country. It is producing economies in co-ordination and integration of road and rail transport.
There is not the time, and this may not be the occasion, to go into detail showing the substantial economies which have been effected as a result of the co-ordination of road and rail transport, but they are substantial and growing, and, in the next few years, unless the organisation is destroyed by the Minister, there will be very considerable economies in transport organisation as a result of this process of co-ordination. Any hon. Member interested may obtain the information from the Transport Commission, and, indeed, I would advise anyone interested to ask for it, because it reveals quite clearly the very great progress made in knitting together road and rail transport by the Commission.
In my view, the Minister's policy in giving this standstill direction to the Transport Commission to halt the integration of road and rail transport is a blow at the transport organisation of our country. The Minister's policy threatens the greatest achievement in our transport history, and will throw road and rail transport back into the morass from which it is finally and surely emerging. The nation's interests must come first in this matter, and the direction should not be renewed, but an "All clear" given to the Commission to go ahead in its great work for the nation's welfare and benefit.
I should like to ask the Minister to reverse his policy because I believe that, in the general interests of the country's transport, and in the face of the mountains of evidence, he is trying to put the clock back. It is not good for the country that he should take our transport system back into the period of internecine warfare that existed before the war. I beg of him not to renew this direction in four weeks' time, but to allow it to lapse and give the Commission the freedom and initiative to carry on the great work which it has started, and build up a greater and more efficient transport undertaking especially in regard to the unification of road and rail transport.

2.38 a.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. John Maclay): It is difficult to reply to the debate which has been initiated by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). His main argument about a direction or standstill order has been founded on a misconception, and I think that the only way to make it clear is to go through some of the points in the Transport Act which deal with acquisitions.
There are two important types of acquisition. First of all, there is voluntary acquisition by agreement, and, at the time this Government came to power, there were practically none of these. When we come to compulsory acquisition, they fall into two categories. The first one concerns taking over undertakings which were predominantly long-distance ones, which the Commission was bound to acquire under Section 39 of the 1947 Act. These compulsory acquisitions had been completed at the time we came to power. There was another type, in which the matter is the other way round. The compulsion did not come from the Commission, but from the individual hauliers who, under the Act, could ask to be taken over, and this is the category to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The Commission was not bound to take over these firms, but the firms themselves could, in certain circumstances, insist on being taken over. The circumstances which could give rise to that right to insist on being taken over were, first of all, where the Commission had refused the original permit or had imposed a limitation or had refused to continue the permit. That is one of the circumstances, and the second one was where the conditions involved substantial interference with the carrying on by the haulier of some activities in which he had been engaged before the introduction of the Bill. It is entirely that category that we are in, and not compulsory acquisition.

Mr. Sparks: Is the hon. Gentleman telling me that this standstill only applies to those road hauliers who had no need to be taken over by the Transport Commission? If that is so, why is it that 65 of them have accepted the postponement of acquisition, if it was a voluntary act on their part originally to ask to be taken over?

Mr. Maclay: That might well be connected with the change of Government. I am only setting out to explain the circumstances, because I think the hon. Member was under a misapprehension about them.
I now come to the next main point. The Act provides for postponement of the vesting date on take-over by agreement between the Commission and the haulier. That is under Section 44 of the Act. Last November, the Commission offered each of the hauliers whose businesses were then in course of acquisition—the category I have mentioned—the alternatives of either proceeding with the transfer in the normal way or of postponing the transfer for six months, or withdrawing the request to be acquired and continuing in business, but restricting their activities to within a 25-mile radius limit.
As the hon. Member knows from the reply which I gave to a Question asked by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) some time ago, the offer was made in 91 cases where the vesting date specified in the notice of acquisition was in the early part of November or later; but under the Section which I have quoted, it is possible for the vesting date to be postponed by agreement between the two sides. That is all that happened. There was no direction by order. It was purely a question of the Commission voluntarily agreeing with the undertaker in question that the vesting date should be postponed. That is where the position stands, and any other argument is a misconception of the position.

Mr. Sparks: Does the Minister now say that the Transport Commission has taken no notice of his general intention to suspend acquisition for six months? Does he say that it has done this on its own initiative without any reference to him or to anybody else?

Mr. Maclay: What happened was that under the powers which I have stated, which gave a clear right for postponement by voluntary agreement, the Commission acted as it was entitled to do. It had regard to the change of circumstances, I presume. In the change of circumstances it was clear that, as these were people who had said they wanted to be taken over, it was not unreasonable to ask them if they still did, and by

voluntary agreement to postpone the date. That is what happened. The fact that these particular firms had of their own accord and not compulsorily come into this arrangement was a good reason, in the circumstances, for the Commission to see if it still wanted to do it. As to the future, I understand that the Commission is no more in a hurry now than it was before to do it.
That deals with the main substance of the hon. Member's argument. I have very little more to say because this is not the time to go into a long and detailed discussion about some of the matters which the hon. Member raised in the latter part of his speech; though I would like to do so. I think the hon. Member will find that a very large number of people in this country do not agree about the magnificent efficiency which he has attributed to this nationalised undertaking. There are many who feel that it would be a disaster to the country, and one which should be remedied.
I do not want to go into a long discussion of the various Commissions and other bodies which sat on this problem, but, having dealt with the main substance of the hon. Gentleman's argument, I hope he will feel that I have covered as much as is reasonable in my reply.

Mr. Percy Collick: When does the Minister anticipate being able to deal with the wider issues to which he has referred?

Mr. Maclay: I must refer the hon. Member to a reply I gave to the House during Question time on Monday.

Mr. Sparks: Could the Minister add just a word about the standstill period? It was originally for six months, and is expiring in four weeks' time. Is it his intention to allow it to lapse, or will it he continued indefinitely?

Mr. Maclay: I have stated in the last few minutes that there is no hurry to go on with these acquisitions, and it may well be that they will not be rushed.

Mr. Sparks: It is a matter entirely in the hands of the Commission?

Mr. Maclay: Yes.

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter to Three o'Clock a.m.